Unfortunately, at this point, the system is self-sustaining. Republicans and Democrats redraw voting districts to ensure that their party wins as many as possible. Both parties actively keep third parties off the ballot and out of public debates whenever possible to make those candidates look like fringe offerings that have no chance of winning. They also each demonize the other party to scare people into thinking that not voting for A means that B will win and BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN!!!!! (Part of the blame is the people's for falling for this, but, to be honest, politicians have gotten VERY good at this game.)
They won't because they are all politicians. If they were in the Oval Office and had the choice to give up some of their power, they'd balk as well. (Maybe one or two would do it, but they are the exception and would be quickly attacked by the other politicians as being "soft on terrorism.")
The reason is that people CHOOSE to share their lives via Facebook/Twitter/etc. I choose what I post on Twitter and other social networks and what I don't. If I text my wife something, I don't share that text (or the contents thereof) with everyone. I consider that private information. Were I to commit (or be suspected of committing) a crime, I wouldn't be surprised if the police got a warrant to look through my texts/call records. However, when a federal organization to look through my stuff just on the off chance that *MAYBE* I might *POSSIBLY* be doing something bad and to does so with no warrants or checks on their power, that becomes an invasion of privacy and an abuse of power.
Plus, who knows what this database is checking for. Today it is just for Terrorism and they claim they'll wipe the data after 5 years. Maybe in 2 years' time they'll decide to expand it to other crimes (actual or imagined) and keep the data for longer periods. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine this database eventually being used to "catch" suspected copyright infringers. And if the "evidence" is secret then how can you counter it at all?
That's what I was thinking. So would-be pirates get together, buy a couple copies of the book, compare them for differences, and post a version of the book that combines both alterations in a random method thus ruining the tracking.
Of course, DRM like this isn't really meant to prevent copying as much as it is meant to form a speed bump to deter the more casual would-be-pirates. (Let's be honest, no DRM stops the more serious pirates.) If this was the only DRM that was deployed, I'd actually support it versus methods like encrypting eBooks in non-open formats that can only be read by certain devices/applications and that can be remotely disabled.
My problem is that I can't become part of the churn data because I live in an area where there's ONE broadband ISP (Time Warner Cable). I could go with Verizon DSL, but they're ditching their DSL service as quickly as they can and I'm not jumping onto a service like that. FIOS doesn't reach into my neighborhood. (I'm not in a rural area. They just stopped their build out before they reached my house.) So if I ever have a major problem with Time Warner Cable's Internet service (like if they instituted those 5GB caps they were drooling over recently), my options would be to a) complain about it as I kept paying them for worse service or b) go back to dial up (not really an option).
But Redbox has a streaming service now. Coincidentally, it's owned by Verizon. But I'm sure Verizon doing this in no way is a plot to make people think Netflix is horrible and Redbox Streaming is wonderful. I'm positive that they're not trying to leverage their network to benefit one of their unrelated services over a competitor. After all, big companies are owned by good, kind-hearted people who only seek to make as many people happy as possible. (Also, the sky is the most beautiful shade of orange in the world I live in.)
More importantly, Verizon's paying customers -- the ones who are requesting to stream from Netflix -- are expecting Verizon to invest in their network so that they can deliver the contracted-for services. The fact that Netflix uses Cogent versus Billy Bob's Bass Boat, Bait Barn, and Content Distribution Network does not really play a role here.
[BEGIN ISP REASONING MODE] Of course, it does. You see, Netflix makes lots of money. Partly, they make that money in a method involving Verizon's network. Verizon doesn't get any of that money. Therefore, it deserves lots of money from Netflix. What's that you say? Verizon gets paid by their customers and Netflix pays their ISP? *sticks fingers in ears* LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA GIVE ME MORE MONEY!!!! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA [/END ISP REASONING MODE]
It looks like Texas is redefining more than one freedom. There's the "right to remain silent" and last week Gov Rick Perry signed the "Merry Christmas Bill" and declared that "Freedom Of Religion" doesn't mean "Freedom From Religion." So while you might not celebrate Christmas, you can't stop a school from forcing your kid into doing something Christmas related just because you don't celebrate it. Of course, he framed it as "every has the right" to religious expression. How long will that sentiment last if a Texas school institutes Muslim prayers for all kids to say? What if they ban all kids from eating or drinking in school on Yom Kippur? What if a Wiccan teacher decides to introduce her students to her religious practices? I highly doubt that Gov Perry will be so open minded. (To people like Gov Perry, "Freedom of Religion" means "everyone is free to practice Christianity in their own Church-approved way.")
"Detain" means you will experience a loss of freedom for a bit (can't leave, etc) while the police look into a situation. The police don't need to prove that you did anything to detain you, but they also can't detain you indefinitely. Detain can turn into arrest, however.
"Arrest" means that they plan on charging you with something. You must be read your Miranda rights and will have your case tried before a judge. You will experience greater restrictions on your freedom, but there is more proof that this is justified. (Yes, they might be wrong, but this will be decided in a court.)
Or, to use an argument that NSA proponents have used, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about [by being more open about the program]."
I loved when The Daily Show replayed that. They pointed out how Clapper is nervously rubbing his head as he answers the questions. The Daily Show's comment: "No spy should have THAT big of a tell!"
I wouldn't put much faith in long term predictions. 2100 is 87 years away. 87 years ago, it was 1926. In 1927, the world's population reached 2 billion (up from 1 billion in 1804). Had they made a prediction then, they would have likely guessed that we'd hit 3 billion by 2049. Maybe 4 billion if they thought we were doubling population numbers. In addition, if someone from 1926 tried predicting what the technology of 2013 would be like, I highly doubt they'd be anywhere close.
My prediction? In 87 years, the world will look in many ways the same and in many ways vastly different in ways that I couldn't begin to imagine at this point.
What it does is makes it tricky to define "the real you." It's easy if one you is in a flesh body with an organic brain and the other is a robot. What if you go in for this robotic avatar program, the flesh you is destroyed and a robot you is created. Is Robot You the real you? What if, due to some error, a second robot you is created? Is Robot You #1 the real you or Robot You #2? Both? Neither? What if the technology existed to copy your brain into another flesh body and one of the Robot Yous went through this procedure? (To simplify matters, let's say it was a clone of the "original you" that was aged to about 20 years old.) Is that Former-Robot-Now-Clone You the real you?
If you have the ability to transfer an exact copy of someone's mind into a different body, defining who a person really is can get tricky.
And they're right in a twisted way. If we give the NSA and other intelligence/security/law enforcement agencies unlimited access to everything everyone is doing at every possible moment, they would be able to catch every criminal. (At least theoretically. In practice, they would be overwhelmed by the flood of data.) The problem isn't that cutting them off from this information makes their job harder, it's that there are good reasons why there are (or should be) limitations on what they are allowed to do. Ultimate power might allow you to stop all crime, but it can also lead to abuse of said power turning you into a criminal.
You've got to read Year Zero by Rob Reid. It deals with just this sort of situation only with music instead of movies. Very clever and funny science fiction.
Maybe not, but what if a consciousness had the exact same memories as you. Some robotic brain just boots up and begins "life" remembering everything you remember up to the last second it was connected to you. From it's perspective, it IS you and "you" just woke up in some robotic body. To that robot, it has a continuity that proves that its consciousness is the real you.
I know this article is about hands-free, but, sadly, too many people seem to think that looking at a phone instead of the road for 15 seconds while travelling 60mph is just fine. The reality is that, in that time at that speed, you've traveled for a quarter mile. If *ANYTHING* happened in front of you during that time, you either have less time to react or no time to react. Each time you do that, you are playing Russian Roulette with your life and the lives of everyone else around you. If a text is THAT important that it can't wait, then pull over to the side of the road (or some other safe spot), type it, send it, and then start driving again. You might lose a minute or two of driving, but you'll lose a lot more than that if you get into an accident!
I think the amount matters. If you are sending off one quick "running late" message and not proof-reading the text-to-speech accuracy, you are probably ok. If, however, you are texting back and forth with someone then you are much less safe and even more unsafe if you are looking at the phone to make sure that the text-to-speech program transcribed your message correctly.
I mainly use the text-to-speech function if I'm walking and want to compose a text message. (Little danger of a high speed collision there.) One time I decided to use it as I started my car (but was still parked). It changed "each" in my text to my wife to "eat sh**" (yes, it put in asterisks). Next time, I'll keep take the extra few seconds to type out my message (while keeping the car in Park, of course).
This XKCD comic seems appropriate: http://xkcd.com/538/
If the NSA encounters encrypted data that they really, REALLY want they will either a) find it ridiculously easy to decrypt because they're the NSA or b) bring you and a $5 wrench in a room and "decrypt" the data like that. Of course, they might also choose c) closely monitor you and everyone you associate with until you (or your associates) slip up and they have your secrets.
It would take just one election for a fundamentalist government of whatever religion to come in and start hunting that data for thought crimes retroactively (and don't tell me about ex post facto laws, if they think it's evil now then it was evil then).
Exactly right. And, for those who think "It won't/can't happen here", I have three words: Senator Joseph McCarthy. Now imagine someone like McCarthy with the ability to search through a modern day NSA database. Add in a populace scared about some threat and you don't even have to convict someone of a crime to ruin them. Just "leak" that so-and-so is a Scary Thing Of The Week and society will do the punishing for you. Have a political opponent trying to stop you? Everyone's done SOMETHING wrong and if he hasn't, you can make up something and everyone will assume you're right because a) you've been right so much in the past and b) you have access to the NSA database so you MUST have evidence. Eventually, nobody who is sane or has anything to lose will oppose you for fear of being branded by you.
So you don't mind giving us your real name, home address, phone number, e-mail address, password to said e-mail account, SSN, date of birth, credit card number (with expiration date & security code), and all your bank account information (including ATM PIN code) right? After all, if you're trying to keep that private, that must mean (by your owm argument) you're doing or planning something criminal in nature.
And, just to add to your argument, just remember that politicians rarely give up a power once obtained. Democrats celebrated when Obama was elected (and I'll include myself here too). Many of us were thinking "At last, those Bush-era government power abuses will end." Of course, being a politician, Obama suddenly realized just how "important" these were and kept them going. (Of course, don't think that Mitt Romney wouldn't have done the same. He's a politician too.)
Even if you are a die-hard Obama fan and think that there's no way Obama abused this power, what about the next guy? Or the guy after that? How can we guarantee that two Presidents down isn't someone who will abuse this NSA program in horrible ways? There's a reason that our Constitution designed government with a system of checks and balances. It's so we don't wind up with another king (or, worse, dictator).
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, at this point, the system is self-sustaining. Republicans and Democrats redraw voting districts to ensure that their party wins as many as possible. Both parties actively keep third parties off the ballot and out of public debates whenever possible to make those candidates look like fringe offerings that have no chance of winning. They also each demonize the other party to scare people into thinking that not voting for A means that B will win and BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN!!!!! (Part of the blame is the people's for falling for this, but, to be honest, politicians have gotten VERY good at this game.)
They won't because they are all politicians. If they were in the Oval Office and had the choice to give up some of their power, they'd balk as well. (Maybe one or two would do it, but they are the exception and would be quickly attacked by the other politicians as being "soft on terrorism.")
The reason is that people CHOOSE to share their lives via Facebook/Twitter/etc. I choose what I post on Twitter and other social networks and what I don't. If I text my wife something, I don't share that text (or the contents thereof) with everyone. I consider that private information. Were I to commit (or be suspected of committing) a crime, I wouldn't be surprised if the police got a warrant to look through my texts/call records. However, when a federal organization to look through my stuff just on the off chance that *MAYBE* I might *POSSIBLY* be doing something bad and to does so with no warrants or checks on their power, that becomes an invasion of privacy and an abuse of power.
Plus, who knows what this database is checking for. Today it is just for Terrorism and they claim they'll wipe the data after 5 years. Maybe in 2 years' time they'll decide to expand it to other crimes (actual or imagined) and keep the data for longer periods. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine this database eventually being used to "catch" suspected copyright infringers. And if the "evidence" is secret then how can you counter it at all?
That's what I was thinking. So would-be pirates get together, buy a couple copies of the book, compare them for differences, and post a version of the book that combines both alterations in a random method thus ruining the tracking.
Of course, DRM like this isn't really meant to prevent copying as much as it is meant to form a speed bump to deter the more casual would-be-pirates. (Let's be honest, no DRM stops the more serious pirates.) If this was the only DRM that was deployed, I'd actually support it versus methods like encrypting eBooks in non-open formats that can only be read by certain devices/applications and that can be remotely disabled.
My problem is that I can't become part of the churn data because I live in an area where there's ONE broadband ISP (Time Warner Cable). I could go with Verizon DSL, but they're ditching their DSL service as quickly as they can and I'm not jumping onto a service like that. FIOS doesn't reach into my neighborhood. (I'm not in a rural area. They just stopped their build out before they reached my house.) So if I ever have a major problem with Time Warner Cable's Internet service (like if they instituted those 5GB caps they were drooling over recently), my options would be to a) complain about it as I kept paying them for worse service or b) go back to dial up (not really an option).
But Redbox has a streaming service now. Coincidentally, it's owned by Verizon. But I'm sure Verizon doing this in no way is a plot to make people think Netflix is horrible and Redbox Streaming is wonderful. I'm positive that they're not trying to leverage their network to benefit one of their unrelated services over a competitor. After all, big companies are owned by good, kind-hearted people who only seek to make as many people happy as possible. (Also, the sky is the most beautiful shade of orange in the world I live in.)
[BEGIN ISP REASONING MODE] Of course, it does. You see, Netflix makes lots of money. Partly, they make that money in a method involving Verizon's network. Verizon doesn't get any of that money. Therefore, it deserves lots of money from Netflix. What's that you say? Verizon gets paid by their customers and Netflix pays their ISP? *sticks fingers in ears* LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA GIVE ME MORE MONEY!!!! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA [/END ISP REASONING MODE]
I agree, America has the best broadband in the world.*
[fine print]* Where "The World" is defined as American and any country with worse broadband than America has.[/fine print]
It looks like Texas is redefining more than one freedom. There's the "right to remain silent" and last week Gov Rick Perry signed the "Merry Christmas Bill" and declared that "Freedom Of Religion" doesn't mean "Freedom From Religion." So while you might not celebrate Christmas, you can't stop a school from forcing your kid into doing something Christmas related just because you don't celebrate it. Of course, he framed it as "every has the right" to religious expression. How long will that sentiment last if a Texas school institutes Muslim prayers for all kids to say? What if they ban all kids from eating or drinking in school on Yom Kippur? What if a Wiccan teacher decides to introduce her students to her religious practices? I highly doubt that Gov Perry will be so open minded. (To people like Gov Perry, "Freedom of Religion" means "everyone is free to practice Christianity in their own Church-approved way.")
"Detain" means you will experience a loss of freedom for a bit (can't leave, etc) while the police look into a situation. The police don't need to prove that you did anything to detain you, but they also can't detain you indefinitely. Detain can turn into arrest, however.
"Arrest" means that they plan on charging you with something. You must be read your Miranda rights and will have your case tried before a judge. You will experience greater restrictions on your freedom, but there is more proof that this is justified. (Yes, they might be wrong, but this will be decided in a court.)
Or, to use an argument that NSA proponents have used, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about [by being more open about the program]."
I loved when The Daily Show replayed that. They pointed out how Clapper is nervously rubbing his head as he answers the questions. The Daily Show's comment: "No spy should have THAT big of a tell!"
I wouldn't put much faith in long term predictions. 2100 is 87 years away. 87 years ago, it was 1926. In 1927, the world's population reached 2 billion (up from 1 billion in 1804). Had they made a prediction then, they would have likely guessed that we'd hit 3 billion by 2049. Maybe 4 billion if they thought we were doubling population numbers. In addition, if someone from 1926 tried predicting what the technology of 2013 would be like, I highly doubt they'd be anywhere close.
My prediction? In 87 years, the world will look in many ways the same and in many ways vastly different in ways that I couldn't begin to imagine at this point.
What it does is makes it tricky to define "the real you." It's easy if one you is in a flesh body with an organic brain and the other is a robot. What if you go in for this robotic avatar program, the flesh you is destroyed and a robot you is created. Is Robot You the real you? What if, due to some error, a second robot you is created? Is Robot You #1 the real you or Robot You #2? Both? Neither? What if the technology existed to copy your brain into another flesh body and one of the Robot Yous went through this procedure? (To simplify matters, let's say it was a clone of the "original you" that was aged to about 20 years old.) Is that Former-Robot-Now-Clone You the real you?
If you have the ability to transfer an exact copy of someone's mind into a different body, defining who a person really is can get tricky.
And they're right in a twisted way. If we give the NSA and other intelligence/security/law enforcement agencies unlimited access to everything everyone is doing at every possible moment, they would be able to catch every criminal. (At least theoretically. In practice, they would be overwhelmed by the flood of data.) The problem isn't that cutting them off from this information makes their job harder, it's that there are good reasons why there are (or should be) limitations on what they are allowed to do. Ultimate power might allow you to stop all crime, but it can also lead to abuse of said power turning you into a criminal.
Or think that Earth is home to a bunch of idiots and decide to cleanse the planet before the idiocy spreads.
You've got to read Year Zero by Rob Reid. It deals with just this sort of situation only with music instead of movies. Very clever and funny science fiction.
Maybe not, but what if a consciousness had the exact same memories as you. Some robotic brain just boots up and begins "life" remembering everything you remember up to the last second it was connected to you. From it's perspective, it IS you and "you" just woke up in some robotic body. To that robot, it has a continuity that proves that its consciousness is the real you.
I know this article is about hands-free, but, sadly, too many people seem to think that looking at a phone instead of the road for 15 seconds while travelling 60mph is just fine. The reality is that, in that time at that speed, you've traveled for a quarter mile. If *ANYTHING* happened in front of you during that time, you either have less time to react or no time to react. Each time you do that, you are playing Russian Roulette with your life and the lives of everyone else around you. If a text is THAT important that it can't wait, then pull over to the side of the road (or some other safe spot), type it, send it, and then start driving again. You might lose a minute or two of driving, but you'll lose a lot more than that if you get into an accident!
I think the amount matters. If you are sending off one quick "running late" message and not proof-reading the text-to-speech accuracy, you are probably ok. If, however, you are texting back and forth with someone then you are much less safe and even more unsafe if you are looking at the phone to make sure that the text-to-speech program transcribed your message correctly.
I mainly use the text-to-speech function if I'm walking and want to compose a text message. (Little danger of a high speed collision there.) One time I decided to use it as I started my car (but was still parked). It changed "each" in my text to my wife to "eat sh**" (yes, it put in asterisks). Next time, I'll keep take the extra few seconds to type out my message (while keeping the car in Park, of course).
This XKCD comic seems appropriate: http://xkcd.com/538/
If the NSA encounters encrypted data that they really, REALLY want they will either a) find it ridiculously easy to decrypt because they're the NSA or b) bring you and a $5 wrench in a room and "decrypt" the data like that. Of course, they might also choose c) closely monitor you and everyone you associate with until you (or your associates) slip up and they have your secrets.
Exactly right. And, for those who think "It won't/can't happen here", I have three words: Senator Joseph McCarthy. Now imagine someone like McCarthy with the ability to search through a modern day NSA database. Add in a populace scared about some threat and you don't even have to convict someone of a crime to ruin them. Just "leak" that so-and-so is a Scary Thing Of The Week and society will do the punishing for you. Have a political opponent trying to stop you? Everyone's done SOMETHING wrong and if he hasn't, you can make up something and everyone will assume you're right because a) you've been right so much in the past and b) you have access to the NSA database so you MUST have evidence. Eventually, nobody who is sane or has anything to lose will oppose you for fear of being branded by you.
So you don't mind giving us your real name, home address, phone number, e-mail address, password to said e-mail account, SSN, date of birth, credit card number (with expiration date & security code), and all your bank account information (including ATM PIN code) right? After all, if you're trying to keep that private, that must mean (by your owm argument) you're doing or planning something criminal in nature.
And, just to add to your argument, just remember that politicians rarely give up a power once obtained. Democrats celebrated when Obama was elected (and I'll include myself here too). Many of us were thinking "At last, those Bush-era government power abuses will end." Of course, being a politician, Obama suddenly realized just how "important" these were and kept them going. (Of course, don't think that Mitt Romney wouldn't have done the same. He's a politician too.)
Even if you are a die-hard Obama fan and think that there's no way Obama abused this power, what about the next guy? Or the guy after that? How can we guarantee that two Presidents down isn't someone who will abuse this NSA program in horrible ways? There's a reason that our Constitution designed government with a system of checks and balances. It's so we don't wind up with another king (or, worse, dictator).