That wouldn't make sense. This applies to a specific system and not to the general concept. The point of the paper isn't that there's a particular outstanding security problem (there is, but it only applies to the one device studied), but that just because quantum cryptography is theoretically perfect doesn't mean that device implementations are necessarily perfect.
Actually, it's a very fast method of detecting an intercepted communication. As such, it's usually grouped with encryption mechanisms. There's absolutely no way of intercepting the data that's not very rapidly detectable, so you can limit the loss of information before terminating the communication. If the information you're transmitting is such that a handful of bits is useless, it's an excellent security system.
This is not, however, the first time it's been used.
Civil trials have a lower burden of proof. If this was a criminal trial, you might need solid evidence that a file was uploaded from her computer. But it's a bit unfair to call into question the juror's intelligence when I think we all know why the files were presented as shared under Kazaa and what the likelihood is that someone downloaded a copy of one of them.
It's a service model as opposed to a professional model. Diebold is renting you machines, and it's your responsibility to conduct your election properly and return the machines when you're done. Not when you think you're done, but you're really not. For all I know, there could be auditing facilities (electronic backup, paper backup) that were not used. Diebold chooses to play no part in how the elections are executed with their machines, which, given popular opposition to the voting machine vendor having a hand in managing elections, seems reasonable.
That sounds either wrong or mostly metaphysical. On the other hand, it would clarify the bit about what "measurement" means somewhat. An observer (the entity performing the measurement) can never been in a superposed state, from the observer's perspective. An outside entity might consider the observer to now be entangled with the system it observed. I don't recall quantum mechanics enough to say much about that.
Not quite. Collapse of superposed states only occurs during measurement (and potentially, only part of the wavefunction collapses upon measurement). While measurement is very clearly defined in laboratory experiments, it's less clearly-defined in general. Multiple quantum objects can form a superposed state together (entanglement), "awaiting measurement", as it were. There's no real distinct "quantum time interval" to apply here. Additionally, the decisions aren't necessarily binary. Quantum computers are great for discussing this. I could construct a two-qbit quantum computer and put it in an state where, when the qbits are measured, there's a 10% chance of measuring 00, a 30% chance of measuring 01, and a 60% chance of measuring 11 (no chance of measuring 10). That's 3 possible states, and not of even weight. Better, I can construct superposed states where the possible measured quantities are a continuum (fancy, more appropriate term for "infinite"). Like if the position of a particle is between 0 and 1, with probability exp(-x)*e/(e-1) (I think that's properly normalized). Collapsing this wavefunction should then produce a continuum of alternate universes?
Generally in the many-worlds model, these separate universes are considered entirely distinct -- no "traveling" between them as if they have some level of reality in "your" universe's space and time. In this case, it seems entirely metaphysical -- which means that it just doesn't matter in terms of actual science.
On top of that, the article is a terrible representation of quantum mechanics. It's about time people stopped referring to superposed states as if they were somehow less real than pure states. (And, of course, all the examples are fanciful macroscopic many-worlds ideas.)
But no, it doesn't provide much in the way of actual information, does it?
In many of the more specialized jobs, people work in the private sector either because they don't want to work for the government or because they couldn't get hired by the government. Most of the NSA and much of the FBI is like this.
The important government networks are on their own network, though there's some evidence that there are a few improper bridges between the two networks. The NSA has, in the past, been tasked with guarding these private networks.
This new program is tasking the NSA to also guard important public networks.
My suspicion is that this is providing funding and regulations for a task the NSA was already falling into doing. There have been some rumors going around about the NSA dropping support for SELinux because they do the bulk of the work, but that's not really their job.
Sort of. The pre-rendering work isn't trivially parallel. With a direct raytracing algorithm, it's parallel at the pixel level, but you lose some power if you do things like cache results, since you need to either compute these results multiple times (losing the cache benefit) or communicate them between processors.
Still, it's true that raytracing parallelizes much more nicely than polygon-drawing.
In my world, also known as reality, the burden is on the shopkeepers to observe you shoplifting. Most shopkeepers do this.
I could equally say that in your world, rights are easily abrogated for the convenience of corporations and the government, and it is assumed that you will be willing to comply with any invasive search on the grounds that an innocent person has nothing to hide.
This sort of setup was common ages ago. We've moved past that, having experienced the injustices visited upon citizens when no controls are in place.
No, while you are on their property, they are entitled to inspect stuff. If you don't want them to, don't go into the store -- their intent to inspect your bag is prominently posted at the entrance.
Now, you can refuse whatever search you find unreasonable, of course (theirs was not unreasonable, IMO). In that case they can try to prevent you from leaving their property (store, parking lot) -- see Citizen Arrest, and take all responsibility for the wrongful arrest.
Incorrect. They do not have the right to search individuals. They do have the right to ask you to leave the premesis. They're quite free to ask you to be searched or leave. They cannot, however, decide to search you after you have entered and done business there and attempt to detain you or take your possessions after you've left the premesis.
They did detain him, and his response was to call the police to be freed from unlawful arrest. (There's substantial documentation on what information is necessary to make lawful arrest for shoplifting.)
Or they can call police, who -- armed with the probable cause presented by the store -- will inspect your bag for them... Upon inspection they can either let you go, or try to inconvenience you for inconveniencing them. There are many laws in their stinky books to do that. The one used by these cops -- "interfering with official business" is one example. "Disturbing peace" is another, and it can be topped with "resisting arrest" at the first word of your indignant objection.
Aah, but not showing a receipt or refusing a search is not probable cause. Someone leaving the store without submitting to a search is evidence for nothing, and the police are required to treat it as such.
You are not obligated to show your receipt. They can, perhaps, make showing your receipt as you leave a condition of your entering the store and shopping there, if they inform you before the fact and not after the fact. Not only are you not obligated to show your receipt, but they cannot prevent you from leaving for doing so.
They do have a right to stop shoplifting. For your protection, this right does not include detaining anyone they think might be shoplifting. If they observe you shoplifting (which requires observing the person select the item, conceal the item, and leave the store without paying), they can stop you long enough to resolve the situation and summon the police. In some states, this action has limited liability; in others, the detaining person is making a citizen's arrest and has greater liability.
You may not think it bears much relation to fascism, but the generalization is that private entities (businesses) are permitted to detain citizens on suspicion of wrongdoing based on arbitrary criteria.
You would be entirely correct re: invaded countries' citizens taking up arms against their aggressors and being considered part of a military or militia and not treated as citizens. The Geneva Conventions of course cover this so that such people can be afforded the same protections as military combatants.
I would have to guess from your response that you did not even read the linked entry on unlawful combatants, from which my comment is derived, and are arguing on what you "feel" should be the right answer.
Your claims are not backed up by international treaty, which makes or made the distinction between military and civilian such that there is no "grey area". While you cast people in this grey area in one particular light (civilians foolish enough to take up arms against a military), bear in mind that "combatant" is a freely-definable term and, if the imprisoned have no legal recourse against their captors, there is nobody to enforce a reasonable definition. Also bear in mind that being considered a civilian is not a great boon. The POW status is a substantial increase in your safety. As a civilian, if you take up arms against the military, you are in a very bad position.
I find it interesting that people seem to think that treating enemy combatants as civilians gives them better rights. As a prisoner of war, your return can be bargained for. You're not held accountable for participating in armed combat. If you surrender, your surrender is to be accepted. If you're a civilian, you only fall under military rules of engagement. While we have ROEs preventing simply killing civilians, a civilian who poses a threat to military personnel can be attacked. If you're taken prisoner as a combatant civilian and subjected either to the local (if deemed friendly) or American legal system, you'll be tried for attacking military personnel. Your friendly nation can't bail you out and you can be held accountable for your actions.
There is a matter of setting an example. Giving a citizen of Syria fewer legal protections than a citizen of the U.K. is tantamount to saying it's fine for nations who don't like us to give our citizens fewer protections. Beyond basic protections, though, there is some level of "tiered protocols", a lot of it based on what we can expect the other country to do for us in a similar situation. We are much more likely to extradite, for example, a U.K. citizen than we are a citizen of a various other nations.
Accountability is exactly what habeas corpus is about. Ideally, if you are not wrongfully imprisoning people, you should have no reason to suspend habeas corpus. Its suspension is generally done for practical reasons, and there, you tread the dangerous waters of practicality versus basic freedoms.
Surely you read the page on unlawful combatants, who, while not afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention as a Prisoner of War, must be prosecuted according to domestic law, retaining all the rights of a civilian. Further, if a person is detained in military conflict and their status cannot be determined, they are to be treated as a prisoner of war until a competent tribunal can determine their status. Believe it or not, the law is not "if you're not a U.S. citizen and you're not a recognized enemy combatant, you have no rights". Or, I should say, was not.
Not granting them the same rights as US citizens isn't "resorting to tactics from the [terrorist] play book." Far from it.
These are actually rights we extend to noncitizens as well -- anyone who is detained via our legal system, which does not include those who are captured as prisoners of war (for which there is a separate set of rules and procedures).
If American citizens were detained in a foreign country, incommunicado, without any rights, review, or legal recourse to challenge their imprisonment, how would we perceive that country? Is this behavior you'd expect of, say, the U.K, Canada, Germany, or any of our peers?
If I recall correctly, actual prisoners of war, those captured on the battlefield, do not have the right of habeas corpus but are protected by the Geneva Conventions. Detainees are not prisoners of war and are not afforded Geneva Convention protections. Whose jurisdiction they fall under and what rights they have is somewhat tricky business. (Note that a noncitizen arrested within the U.S. for a crime committed in the U.S. has the same legal rights as a citizen.)
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately it's not the Constitution that describes patent law.
That wouldn't make sense. This applies to a specific system and not to the general concept. The point of the paper isn't that there's a particular outstanding security problem (there is, but it only applies to the one device studied), but that just because quantum cryptography is theoretically perfect doesn't mean that device implementations are necessarily perfect.
Actually, it's a very fast method of detecting an intercepted communication. As such, it's usually grouped with encryption mechanisms. There's absolutely no way of intercepting the data that's not very rapidly detectable, so you can limit the loss of information before terminating the communication. If the information you're transmitting is such that a handful of bits is useless, it's an excellent security system.
This is not, however, the first time it's been used.
Why is this Your Rights Online? It involves neither rights nor online.
Civil trials have a lower burden of proof. If this was a criminal trial, you might need solid evidence that a file was uploaded from her computer. But it's a bit unfair to call into question the juror's intelligence when I think we all know why the files were presented as shared under Kazaa and what the likelihood is that someone downloaded a copy of one of them.
It's a service model as opposed to a professional model. Diebold is renting you machines, and it's your responsibility to conduct your election properly and return the machines when you're done. Not when you think you're done, but you're really not. For all I know, there could be auditing facilities (electronic backup, paper backup) that were not used. Diebold chooses to play no part in how the elections are executed with their machines, which, given popular opposition to the voting machine vendor having a hand in managing elections, seems reasonable.
That sounds either wrong or mostly metaphysical. On the other hand, it would clarify the bit about what "measurement" means somewhat. An observer (the entity performing the measurement) can never been in a superposed state, from the observer's perspective. An outside entity might consider the observer to now be entangled with the system it observed. I don't recall quantum mechanics enough to say much about that.
Not quite. Collapse of superposed states only occurs during measurement (and potentially, only part of the wavefunction collapses upon measurement). While measurement is very clearly defined in laboratory experiments, it's less clearly-defined in general. Multiple quantum objects can form a superposed state together (entanglement), "awaiting measurement", as it were. There's no real distinct "quantum time interval" to apply here. Additionally, the decisions aren't necessarily binary. Quantum computers are great for discussing this. I could construct a two-qbit quantum computer and put it in an state where, when the qbits are measured, there's a 10% chance of measuring 00, a 30% chance of measuring 01, and a 60% chance of measuring 11 (no chance of measuring 10). That's 3 possible states, and not of even weight. Better, I can construct superposed states where the possible measured quantities are a continuum (fancy, more appropriate term for "infinite"). Like if the position of a particle is between 0 and 1, with probability exp(-x)*e/(e-1) (I think that's properly normalized). Collapsing this wavefunction should then produce a continuum of alternate universes?
Generally in the many-worlds model, these separate universes are considered entirely distinct -- no "traveling" between them as if they have some level of reality in "your" universe's space and time. In this case, it seems entirely metaphysical -- which means that it just doesn't matter in terms of actual science.
On top of that, the article is a terrible representation of quantum mechanics. It's about time people stopped referring to superposed states as if they were somehow less real than pure states. (And, of course, all the examples are fanciful macroscopic many-worlds ideas.)
But no, it doesn't provide much in the way of actual information, does it?
I can invent translations as viably as you can. They already have people tasked with software updates.
You won't be impressed, though. You probably will not find out what it is they end up doing. This is the NSA, after all.
In many of the more specialized jobs, people work in the private sector either because they don't want to work for the government or because they couldn't get hired by the government. Most of the NSA and much of the FBI is like this.
The important government networks are on their own network, though there's some evidence that there are a few improper bridges between the two networks. The NSA has, in the past, been tasked with guarding these private networks.
This new program is tasking the NSA to also guard important public networks.
My suspicion is that this is providing funding and regulations for a task the NSA was already falling into doing. There have been some rumors going around about the NSA dropping support for SELinux because they do the bulk of the work, but that's not really their job.
If you're planning on making a bomb and sneaking it into a secure area, put it in a nondescript package, rather than wearing it on your shirt.
Frankly, any terrorist able to pull off a decent plan will have a well-concealed bomb. If you can see the bomb, then it's too late.
Sort of. The pre-rendering work isn't trivially parallel. With a direct raytracing algorithm, it's parallel at the pixel level, but you lose some power if you do things like cache results, since you need to either compute these results multiple times (losing the cache benefit) or communicate them between processors.
Still, it's true that raytracing parallelizes much more nicely than polygon-drawing.
In my world, also known as reality, the burden is on the shopkeepers to observe you shoplifting. Most shopkeepers do this.
I could equally say that in your world, rights are easily abrogated for the convenience of corporations and the government, and it is assumed that you will be willing to comply with any invasive search on the grounds that an innocent person has nothing to hide.
This sort of setup was common ages ago. We've moved past that, having experienced the injustices visited upon citizens when no controls are in place.
No, while you are on their property, they are entitled to inspect stuff. If you don't want them to, don't go into the store -- their intent to inspect your bag is prominently posted at the entrance.
Now, you can refuse whatever search you find unreasonable, of course (theirs was not unreasonable, IMO). In that case they can try to prevent you from leaving their property (store, parking lot) -- see Citizen Arrest, and take all responsibility for the wrongful arrest.
Incorrect. They do not have the right to search individuals. They do have the right to ask you to leave the premesis. They're quite free to ask you to be searched or leave. They cannot, however, decide to search you after you have entered and done business there and attempt to detain you or take your possessions after you've left the premesis.
They did detain him, and his response was to call the police to be freed from unlawful arrest. (There's substantial documentation on what information is necessary to make lawful arrest for shoplifting.)
Or they can call police, who -- armed with the probable cause presented by the store -- will inspect your bag for them... Upon inspection they can either let you go, or try to inconvenience you for inconveniencing them. There are many laws in their stinky books to do that. The one used by these cops -- "interfering with official business" is one example. "Disturbing peace" is another, and it can be topped with "resisting arrest" at the first word of your indignant objection.
Aah, but not showing a receipt or refusing a search is not probable cause. Someone leaving the store without submitting to a search is evidence for nothing, and the police are required to treat it as such.
You are not obligated to show your receipt. They can, perhaps, make showing your receipt as you leave a condition of your entering the store and shopping there, if they inform you before the fact and not after the fact. Not only are you not obligated to show your receipt, but they cannot prevent you from leaving for doing so.
They do have a right to stop shoplifting. For your protection, this right does not include detaining anyone they think might be shoplifting. If they observe you shoplifting (which requires observing the person select the item, conceal the item, and leave the store without paying), they can stop you long enough to resolve the situation and summon the police. In some states, this action has limited liability; in others, the detaining person is making a citizen's arrest and has greater liability.
You may not think it bears much relation to fascism, but the generalization is that private entities (businesses) are permitted to detain citizens on suspicion of wrongdoing based on arbitrary criteria.
You would be entirely correct re: invaded countries' citizens taking up arms against their aggressors and being considered part of a military or militia and not treated as citizens. The Geneva Conventions of course cover this so that such people can be afforded the same protections as military combatants.
I would have to guess from your response that you did not even read the linked entry on unlawful combatants, from which my comment is derived, and are arguing on what you "feel" should be the right answer.
Your claims are not backed up by international treaty, which makes or made the distinction between military and civilian such that there is no "grey area". While you cast people in this grey area in one particular light (civilians foolish enough to take up arms against a military), bear in mind that "combatant" is a freely-definable term and, if the imprisoned have no legal recourse against their captors, there is nobody to enforce a reasonable definition. Also bear in mind that being considered a civilian is not a great boon. The POW status is a substantial increase in your safety. As a civilian, if you take up arms against the military, you are in a very bad position.
I find it interesting that people seem to think that treating enemy combatants as civilians gives them better rights. As a prisoner of war, your return can be bargained for. You're not held accountable for participating in armed combat. If you surrender, your surrender is to be accepted. If you're a civilian, you only fall under military rules of engagement. While we have ROEs preventing simply killing civilians, a civilian who poses a threat to military personnel can be attacked. If you're taken prisoner as a combatant civilian and subjected either to the local (if deemed friendly) or American legal system, you'll be tried for attacking military personnel. Your friendly nation can't bail you out and you can be held accountable for your actions.
There is a matter of setting an example. Giving a citizen of Syria fewer legal protections than a citizen of the U.K. is tantamount to saying it's fine for nations who don't like us to give our citizens fewer protections. Beyond basic protections, though, there is some level of "tiered protocols", a lot of it based on what we can expect the other country to do for us in a similar situation. We are much more likely to extradite, for example, a U.K. citizen than we are a citizen of a various other nations.
Accountability is exactly what habeas corpus is about. Ideally, if you are not wrongfully imprisoning people, you should have no reason to suspend habeas corpus. Its suspension is generally done for practical reasons, and there, you tread the dangerous waters of practicality versus basic freedoms.
Surely you read the page on unlawful combatants, who, while not afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention as a Prisoner of War, must be prosecuted according to domestic law, retaining all the rights of a civilian. Further, if a person is detained in military conflict and their status cannot be determined, they are to be treated as a prisoner of war until a competent tribunal can determine their status. Believe it or not, the law is not "if you're not a U.S. citizen and you're not a recognized enemy combatant, you have no rights". Or, I should say, was not.
Not granting them the same rights as US citizens isn't "resorting to tactics from the [terrorist] play book." Far from it.
These are actually rights we extend to noncitizens as well -- anyone who is detained via our legal system, which does not include those who are captured as prisoners of war (for which there is a separate set of rules and procedures).
If American citizens were detained in a foreign country, incommunicado, without any rights, review, or legal recourse to challenge their imprisonment, how would we perceive that country? Is this behavior you'd expect of, say, the U.K, Canada, Germany, or any of our peers?
If I recall correctly, actual prisoners of war, those captured on the battlefield, do not have the right of habeas corpus but are protected by the Geneva Conventions. Detainees are not prisoners of war and are not afforded Geneva Convention protections. Whose jurisdiction they fall under and what rights they have is somewhat tricky business. (Note that a noncitizen arrested within the U.S. for a crime committed in the U.S. has the same legal rights as a citizen.)