Contrary to what Libertarians like to claim, the Federal Reserve and the Mint do not print money and then simply donate it to the Federal government to spend.
That depends on the return path and what's being done with the GPS data. Sending data via cell phone in an urban area has no privacy concerns unless the government (or the cell company) is after you. Using that link to post GPS data publicly certainly is.
Now, in that case, the whole system is what is creating the privacy concern, not the GPS receiver. But when people say that GPS creates privacy concerns, you may be the only person who incorrectly interprets that as "the presence of the GPS device by itself creates a privacy concern". People are talking about the whole system, where the data of interest is GPS-provided location.
No, "dark matter" and "dark energy" are just discrepancies in two particular aspects of astrophysics. Empirical observations suggest that there's more matter out there than we can see. However, because they sound vague and they're active areas of research (that is, they're mentioned often and it's clear we don't know what they are), people who have no real understanding of physics jump to the conclusion that it's some general hand-waving. Perhaps this makes them reinforces their belief that they're so much smarter than those durned scientists -- who knows.
but I can't for the life of me see any novel ideas that need solving, cobbling together existing components into an eBook
If you could have come up with the idea off-hand in writing up a reply to a Slashdot article, it wouldn't be much in the way of a novel idea, would it?
Even with the current state of MD5, you cannot: * create a file with a specified hash (that is, if File A already exists, you cannot make File B have the same hash as File A -- you need to be able to manipulate File A and control its hash) * create two files with the same hash and guarantee that they will be the same length
While there are attack vectors where the first is not a problem, with any reasonable filesystem hashing scheme, the latter breaks any attack vector.
They absolutely should be using DRM -- on the secret document. Trying to get everyone to stop using P2P software may be the least efficient way to tackle this problem.
Most of the information leak and inadvertent downloading of malware arguments are appropriate for Gnutella-like networks. As you point out, it's very unlikely to accidentally leak information over BitTorrent. It's also quite unlikely to accidentally download malware when downloading music or movies over BitTorrent.
I'm a physicist, actually. That's why I don't appreciate market-level progression in technology being described as "laws of physics" for the sake of making an opinion piece sound better.
I read the article, and, in fact, searched for "physics". Those are a result of technology (and a lot of other things -- simple existence of technology doesn't magically supply you with better hard drives and network connections). That has nothing to do with "the laws of physics", even if you think it makes for a super cool phrase.
Hunh. Well, there may be regional differences or something. I've only been through two airports where they had scanners, and there seemed to be plenty of people who were wary of That There X-ray Thing.
I agree with your revised statement, basically. I don't agree that this is the same as renting the property from the government.
Technically, I disagree that you are "paying a government for [the property]", but rather, paying the government for its services. (Of course, you cannot deny these services.)
In legal and political matters, these distinctions are important.
Clearly, the government asserts some rights over an area that includes your property. Though you own the property, you don't actually hold all rights to the property exclusively. This arrangement is so common, though, that it's not incompatible with the definition of "ownership".
Some people claim this arrangement is an abomination and an affront to freedom, others claim it's necessary if we want to be more than cave-dwelling savages.
No, "you are constantly renting it from the government" is just the most convenient to your odd world-view and argument. As you maintain control of the property (and can transfer this control to others), you are the owner of the property.
However, being the owner of property doesn't mean it can't be seized in order to pay debts, and it doesn't mean you can't be taxed based on the property you own. They don't seize your property because you don't pay property taxes or you don't maintain the property according to local ordinances. They fine you, and possibly jail you. If you are unable to pay the fine, they may seize property of value you own in order to pay that fine.
I'm not sure which airports you go to, but the ones I go to, about half the people searched opt not to use the scanner, and the TSA agents clearly don't give a damn which route you take.
First, DMCA requires encryption. Not permitting you access to your e-mail without authentication isn't encryption (even if the communication channel is encrypted, the data at rest is not).
Second, if you DRM-wrap a video, you have created (and are distributing) an encrypted piece of data that is only readable if you have the decryption key. When you send an e-mail, the data of the e-mail itself is never encrypted (though a communication channel it is sent on may be) and it is stored, unencrypted, by a third party (unless the recipient runs their own e-mail server, in which case they are the third party). They may well require some form of authentication before they will send or display the e-mail to you, but that has nothing to do with encryption. The warrant is issued to access the e-mail stored at rest on the server, which is unencrypted.
Now, were you to send encrypted e-mail, the story would be very different. (Well, really, were you to start receiving encrypted e-mail. The nature of e-mail encryption is such that they would need to request the decryption key from the recipient.) Apart from the minor fact that nobody really uses e-mail encryption, and it's only useful if both sender and recipient use it, e-mail encryption is a very good idea. I mean, the e-mail is stored by a third party, unencrypted, and is sent across the Internet, unencrypted. What part of that sounds like a good idea?
In the case of a warrantless search, the rules concerning who they have to notify when they serve a warrant are irrelevant. (I do not think warrantless searches of e-mail happen often enough to be a concern. I won't say the same of FISA warrants, though.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they are.
The only branch that can pass laws, too. So how does Obama always get mentioned with health care and economic stimulus?
Contrary to what Libertarians like to claim, the Federal Reserve and the Mint do not print money and then simply donate it to the Federal government to spend.
Weren't the original 3-strikes laws for drug convictions, mandating prison time for the 3rd offense?
Probably worse than having your electricity shut off.
The problem is, I'm sure, soluble
Soluble, sure, but only in aqua fortis.
Or did you mean solvable?
That depends on the return path and what's being done with the GPS data. Sending data via cell phone in an urban area has no privacy concerns unless the government (or the cell company) is after you. Using that link to post GPS data publicly certainly is.
Now, in that case, the whole system is what is creating the privacy concern, not the GPS receiver. But when people say that GPS creates privacy concerns, you may be the only person who incorrectly interprets that as "the presence of the GPS device by itself creates a privacy concern". People are talking about the whole system, where the data of interest is GPS-provided location.
Wow, you'd think with six companies selling products to do just this, one of them would have figured that out by now.
No, "dark matter" and "dark energy" are just discrepancies in two particular aspects of astrophysics. Empirical observations suggest that there's more matter out there than we can see. However, because they sound vague and they're active areas of research (that is, they're mentioned often and it's clear we don't know what they are), people who have no real understanding of physics jump to the conclusion that it's some general hand-waving. Perhaps this makes them reinforces their belief that they're so much smarter than those durned scientists -- who knows.
but I can't for the life of me see any novel ideas that need solving, cobbling together existing components into an eBook
If you could have come up with the idea off-hand in writing up a reply to a Slashdot article, it wouldn't be much in the way of a novel idea, would it?
That's Slashdot for you. The CNet article is titled "Interview: The Space Station's IT guys".
Even with the current state of MD5, you cannot:
* create a file with a specified hash (that is, if File A already exists, you cannot make File B have the same hash as File A -- you need to be able to manipulate File A and control its hash)
* create two files with the same hash and guarantee that they will be the same length
While there are attack vectors where the first is not a problem, with any reasonable filesystem hashing scheme, the latter breaks any attack vector.
The women who bore children also got shorter, apparently.
They absolutely should be using DRM -- on the secret document. Trying to get everyone to stop using P2P software may be the least efficient way to tackle this problem.
Most of the information leak and inadvertent downloading of malware arguments are appropriate for Gnutella-like networks. As you point out, it's very unlikely to accidentally leak information over BitTorrent. It's also quite unlikely to accidentally download malware when downloading music or movies over BitTorrent.
I'm a physicist, actually. That's why I don't appreciate market-level progression in technology being described as "laws of physics" for the sake of making an opinion piece sound better.
I read the article, and, in fact, searched for "physics". Those are a result of technology (and a lot of other things -- simple existence of technology doesn't magically supply you with better hard drives and network connections). That has nothing to do with "the laws of physics", even if you think it makes for a super cool phrase.
Hunh. Well, there may be regional differences or something. I've only been through two airports where they had scanners, and there seemed to be plenty of people who were wary of That There X-ray Thing.
What bearing does physics have on this?
No, the following, which this was in response to, is not about encrypted e-mail, but e-mail in general:
A postcard is public, a letter in an envelope is private.
Right, like posting on a Blog is public and sending an email (which requires a password "envelope") is private.
I agree with your revised statement, basically. I don't agree that this is the same as renting the property from the government.
Technically, I disagree that you are "paying a government for [the property]", but rather, paying the government for its services. (Of course, you cannot deny these services.)
In legal and political matters, these distinctions are important.
Clearly, the government asserts some rights over an area that includes your property. Though you own the property, you don't actually hold all rights to the property exclusively. This arrangement is so common, though, that it's not incompatible with the definition of "ownership".
Some people claim this arrangement is an abomination and an affront to freedom, others claim it's necessary if we want to be more than cave-dwelling savages.
No, "you are constantly renting it from the government" is just the most convenient to your odd world-view and argument. As you maintain control of the property (and can transfer this control to others), you are the owner of the property.
However, being the owner of property doesn't mean it can't be seized in order to pay debts, and it doesn't mean you can't be taxed based on the property you own. They don't seize your property because you don't pay property taxes or you don't maintain the property according to local ordinances. They fine you, and possibly jail you. If you are unable to pay the fine, they may seize property of value you own in order to pay that fine.
If they passed through everything, they wouldn't be very useful for scanning, would they?
I'm not sure which airports you go to, but the ones I go to, about half the people searched opt not to use the scanner, and the TSA agents clearly don't give a damn which route you take.
First, DMCA requires encryption. Not permitting you access to your e-mail without authentication isn't encryption (even if the communication channel is encrypted, the data at rest is not).
Second, if you DRM-wrap a video, you have created (and are distributing) an encrypted piece of data that is only readable if you have the decryption key. When you send an e-mail, the data of the e-mail itself is never encrypted (though a communication channel it is sent on may be) and it is stored, unencrypted, by a third party (unless the recipient runs their own e-mail server, in which case they are the third party). They may well require some form of authentication before they will send or display the e-mail to you, but that has nothing to do with encryption. The warrant is issued to access the e-mail stored at rest on the server, which is unencrypted.
Now, were you to send encrypted e-mail, the story would be very different. (Well, really, were you to start receiving encrypted e-mail. The nature of e-mail encryption is such that they would need to request the decryption key from the recipient.) Apart from the minor fact that nobody really uses e-mail encryption, and it's only useful if both sender and recipient use it, e-mail encryption is a very good idea. I mean, the e-mail is stored by a third party, unencrypted, and is sent across the Internet, unencrypted. What part of that sounds like a good idea?
In the case of a warrantless search, the rules concerning who they have to notify when they serve a warrant are irrelevant. (I do not think warrantless searches of e-mail happen often enough to be a concern. I won't say the same of FISA warrants, though.)