Since multiple governments mandate that Blackberry share back doors with them, it's not clear to me what benefit more encryption will really add.
Having fewer people able to eavesdrop on you is enough to prefer one technology over the other. For example, even if governments A and B can still listen on your conversation with a particular party, being protected from all other governments — as well as NGOs — can be quite helpful and thus desirable.
If we were applying the same standards to the First Amendment, that Illiberals want us to apply to the Second, the only Constitution-protected speech would be that of petitioning the government — and only for redress of grievances.
The petitioner would also have to register and undergo a background check, wait for a certain "waiting period" to end before petitioning, and only use the methods available in the 18th century — such as personal speech, newspapers, books or pamphlets — but not TV, radio, or the Internet.
The question of whether or not threats can be made explicitly illegal, would not even have arisen...
I don't support violent riots & looting but I've been hearing a LOT of people wishing death on the looters, which I find both disturbing & confounding.
Let me try to explain this, because you seem sincere. Since we are all alone here already, I will not come back again — just once. I do think, thieves and robbers — and most other kinds of assholes — are better off dead. I do not we should have death penalty for most — if any — crimes. I do think, they deserve death, but I do not think, the society should be killing them.
The explanation for this seeming contradiction is that the very process of institutionalized killing is mistakes-prone and irreversible. It also requires a special kind of assholes to perform the deeds. But if a peaceful store-owner gets outraged at the blatant robbers looting his store — I would approve of his shooting each one of them (and their girlfriends, who help carry the loot out) dead.
then perhaps Occupy Wall Street should have demanded the summary execution
Many (most?) of the asshats participating in OWS deserve death in my opinion too...
all on Wall St and any complicit corporations because THOSE theiving assholes did FAR more lasting harm
Just who are "THOSE" and what exactly is your beef with the bankers? Very few of them have done anything wrong and the worst accusation I've heard, is that they didn't provide enough scrutiny to people lying on their mortgage-applications. Irresponsible though that was, the main guilt is still with the lying dead-beats — not the bankers.
The other accusation — that some bank managers did not personally sign the eviction paperwork is nonsensical hair-splitting... The few cases, when people really were lied to, got prosecuted and the culprits are in jail — they do deserve death, but should not be killed as I said at the beginning.
Times DO change — and the need for local governments to "certify" cabbies is now as obsolete, as horse-drawn carriages. Uber-like companies can — and do — vouch for the drivers and their vehicles at a fraction of the cost the governments charged.
American capitalism is the most corrupt it has ever been.
Off-topic.
But your sig tells me all I need to know about you.
Even further off-topic... And an ad-hominem to boot. Given the number of mistakes you made in one posting, I wonder, if you putting shoes on in the morning is something, with which your minders still trust you.
But you are even more thoroughly full of it — because, though Uber may have a few billion, it is not Uber but rather the drivers, who sign up with them, that are breaking these local ordinances. None of them are billionaires.
massive, powerful machines, but vey slow and difficult to maneuver.
the requirement for a flag man and other restrictions were not half so ridiculous
If they were, as you say, massive and very slow, then the red-flag requirement is ridiculous. How could a man with the flag possibly increase the passers-by already abundant awareness of something, that is massive (and noisy, I might add) and slow?
The piece of the write-up, that I quoted: "core business model is, frankly, illegal in most of its markets as well," — shows, that — for some, at least — the very idea behind is an issue as well.
core business model is, frankly, illegal in most of its markets as well.
We sure are lucky, pay-phones weren't able to legally block the introduction and use of cell-phones. From what I hear, we weren't quite as lucky with horse-drawn carriages being obsoleted by autos — but sanity prevailed.
Now the traditional — licensed — taxis are being obsoleted by Uber and the likes and that is a good thing, even if the taxi industry and the rent-seeking city halls don't like it.
All, that cabbie-licenses told you, was that the local town considers the driver (if it is even the same man!) and his car to be compliant with its requirements. Well, Uber does the same sort of vouching for you, the consumer. And they are able to provide that guarantee faster and at (much) lower cost. Sure, there are cases of Uber-drivers going bad, but it happens to taxis too.
But they can fine Google — something like $1mln per day to fund something For The Greater Good. The fine can't be crippling, as you point out, but it can still be large.
The Stalin-era edition of Soviet Encyclopedia — a monumental collection of large volumes not unlike Britannica — once had a large article (full of praises, of course) about Lavrenty Beria. When Stalin died, Beria lost to others and was promptly shot.
To erase the memory of those praises, all owners of the encyclopedia (there weren't that many) were required to cut out the article about him — and replace it with an article about Bering Strait. True story...
We can't stop the government from doing it to us, but at least let's feel positive if they try to stop corporations from doing it to us TOO
Before saying a particular measure is good against KKKorporations (and that is the proper spelling for a rant like yours), apply it against yourself first.
For example, if you want the minimum hourly pay to be $15, remember, that it will apply to you, when you are blessed with a child and need to hire a nanny. Oh, and if she works for you full time — you'll need to provide her with health insurance and a few other things.
Likewise with the right to be forgotten — what you welcome for KKKorporations, may some day be applied to you. Manipulating human memories is already possible. Would you like your ex to be able to obtain a court order requiring you to undergo the procedure to make you forget the good times you two once had?
no better than "war on drugs" or any other method of milking the tax payer..
Well, drugs really are bad for both the Individual taking them and the Collective he belongs to. They may or may not be be sufficiently bad to wage a "war", but they are bad.
Google maintaining their indexing unaffected by the whims of subjects of some of the texts out there is not bad. Not at all.
Seriously? We are about to have self-driving cars — and some say, human drivers should be banned — you are afraid to trust the car to automatically open windows, when the inside gets too hot?
This sort of logic was present and functioning on the first steam-engines! You have such a system in your toilet — it closes the water-valve, when the "sensor" detects, the tank is full...
It'd be way safer to get a fan going to circulate the air than to crack the windows open. You really want car makers to open themselves up to having cars stolen easier?
Spinning fan will drain battery quickly. A slightly-open window will not make theft much easier — and the alarm will still go on, if the door is opened.
People do leave windows rolled-down a little on hot days as a matter of course. Would be nice, if the car could do it itself. And even close them back up, if rain starts.
* continuous monitoring will drain your battery, so you will come to a dead battery every time you go on vacation;
I have an outside temperature sensor, that radios figures to the display unit inside. Its puny little battery lasts a year... You too can get one at Home Depot.
the system will also have to monitor for precipitation
As I said, such sensors are already built into my car. The wipers start automatically, when the rain or snow hits the windshield.
there are better ways to spend ~100$ in parts and 5lb of weight.
All the hardware is already in the car. Just need to teach the existing software a new trick.
How would that make a difference? They're the government. They *are* all the money, right?
The government does have unlimited pockets, but the budgets of individual prosecuting agencies is limited...
And if they don't have the money now, can't they can just raise taxes during the next budget cycle to cover those costs?
It would still force prosecutors to be more restrained. If, for example, we paid $10K for each alleged felony and $5K for each misdemeanor, the guy in TFA would've been due $440K. Well, maybe, $430 if one of the felonies was downgraded to misdemeanor. Whether the agency has money or not, making the accused rich like that is embarrassing and prosecutors would be more careful. And, maybe, some of the funds may even come from the prosecutor's own bonus...
unlocking car boots, setting off windscreen wipers, locking brakes, and cutting the engine.
If a hacker can do all that, why can't the car itself open the windows slightly if the temperature inside gets high and there is no rain outside? All the hardware is already there — the sensors know both the inside temperature and whether anything is hitting the windshield (so wipers can turn automatically in rain).
Would've made returning to your car in the sunny lot more comfortable and even saved some lives.
No. The change I propose would discourage big (guys or companies) from going after small (guys or companies) frivolously — when they don't care whether they win or lose, they just want the small to fold for fear of legal costs regardless of outcome. With my system, if you are sure of being right, you don't need to fear ruin upon winning.
because now on top of everything else the little guy has to pay the legal bills of the big company that screwed him over.
What "screwed over"? The judge/jury just ruled, that the "big company" was right. The loser ought to pay — whether he is large or little. The court has ruled and found him in the wrong. Pay up.
Small guy stretches his budget and pays $10,000 in legal fees. Big company's legal budget is $10 million.
If the target of the lawsuit (your hypothetical company) was forced to spend $10 million to defend itself, then, yes, $10 million it will be. Unless, maybe, the judge will tell them, they didn't need to feed 10 lawyers black caviar. But it is entirely possible that the parties' legal costs will be in different orders of magnitude — that may still be perfectly legitimate.
Now, granted, you may not be automatically entitled to all of your legal costs upon winning. But you certainly ought to be entitled to something. Something substantial. Like, say, $10K for each felony allegation, that did not hold — and $5K for each such alleged misdemeanor.
what do you do when one of those entities with large legal budgets initiates frivolous proceedings and wins precisely because they have said budget and the other guy doesn't?
They can already do that, so we would not be any worse off. My proposal would not seriously help those with large legal budgets — but it will help those with small ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Having fewer people able to eavesdrop on you is enough to prefer one technology over the other. For example, even if governments A and B can still listen on your conversation with a particular party, being protected from all other governments — as well as NGOs — can be quite helpful and thus desirable.
I don't see the perceived "importance" of a law as germane to whether it should be consistently interpreted...
Well, not completely ...
If we were applying the same standards to the First Amendment, that Illiberals want us to apply to the Second, the only Constitution-protected speech would be that of petitioning the government — and only for redress of grievances.
The petitioner would also have to register and undergo a background check, wait for a certain "waiting period" to end before petitioning, and only use the methods available in the 18th century — such as personal speech, newspapers, books or pamphlets — but not TV, radio, or the Internet.
The question of whether or not threats can be made explicitly illegal, would not even have arisen...
Let me try to explain this, because you seem sincere. Since we are all alone here already, I will not come back again — just once. I do think, thieves and robbers — and most other kinds of assholes — are better off dead. I do not we should have death penalty for most — if any — crimes. I do think, they deserve death, but I do not think, the society should be killing them.
The explanation for this seeming contradiction is that the very process of institutionalized killing is mistakes-prone and irreversible. It also requires a special kind of assholes to perform the deeds. But if a peaceful store-owner gets outraged at the blatant robbers looting his store — I would approve of his shooting each one of them (and their girlfriends, who help carry the loot out) dead.
Many (most?) of the asshats participating in OWS deserve death in my opinion too...
Just who are "THOSE" and what exactly is your beef with the bankers? Very few of them have done anything wrong and the worst accusation I've heard, is that they didn't provide enough scrutiny to people lying on their mortgage-applications. Irresponsible though that was, the main guilt is still with the lying dead-beats — not the bankers.
The other accusation — that some bank managers did not personally sign the eviction paperwork is nonsensical hair-splitting... The few cases, when people really were lied to, got prosecuted and the culprits are in jail — they do deserve death, but should not be killed as I said at the beginning.
Times DO change — and the need for local governments to "certify" cabbies is now as obsolete, as horse-drawn carriages. Uber-like companies can — and do — vouch for the drivers and their vehicles at a fraction of the cost the governments charged.
Off-topic.
Even further off-topic... And an ad-hominem to boot. Given the number of mistakes you made in one posting, I wonder, if you putting shoes on in the morning is something, with which your minders still trust you.
If we followed such "laws", you'd still have to use pay-phones instead of the cellular one in your pocket. And your car's speed would've remained limited to 4mph and you'd have to pay someone to walk in front of it with a red flag — or keep using a horse-drawn carriage.
But you are even more thoroughly full of it — because, though Uber may have a few billion, it is not Uber but rather the drivers, who sign up with them, that are breaking these local ordinances. None of them are billionaires.
If they were, as you say, massive and very slow, then the red-flag requirement is ridiculous. How could a man with the flag possibly increase the passers-by already abundant awareness of something, that is massive (and noisy, I might add) and slow?
The piece of the write-up, that I quoted: "core business model is, frankly, illegal in most of its markets as well," — shows, that — for some, at least — the very idea behind is an issue as well.
That in itself is not enough to declare the cause "invalid".
The cause of the war on drugs is valid.
And this one is not valid.
It is the validity of the cause, that ought to be the benchmark — not whether or not fighting for it makes somebody comfortable.
We sure are lucky, pay-phones weren't able to legally block the introduction and use of cell-phones. From what I hear, we weren't quite as lucky with horse-drawn carriages being obsoleted by autos — but sanity prevailed.
Now the traditional — licensed — taxis are being obsoleted by Uber and the likes and that is a good thing, even if the taxi industry and the rent-seeking city halls don't like it.
All, that cabbie-licenses told you, was that the local town considers the driver (if it is even the same man!) and his car to be compliant with its requirements. Well, Uber does the same sort of vouching for you, the consumer. And they are able to provide that guarantee faster and at (much) lower cost. Sure, there are cases of Uber-drivers going bad, but it happens to taxis too.
But they can fine Google — something like $1mln per day to fund something For The Greater Good. The fine can't be crippling, as you point out, but it can still be large.
The Stalin-era edition of Soviet Encyclopedia — a monumental collection of large volumes not unlike Britannica — once had a large article (full of praises, of course) about Lavrenty Beria. When Stalin died, Beria lost to others and was promptly shot.
To erase the memory of those praises, all owners of the encyclopedia (there weren't that many) were required to cut out the article about him — and replace it with an article about Bering Strait. True story...
Before saying a particular measure is good against KKKorporations (and that is the proper spelling for a rant like yours), apply it against yourself first.
For example, if you want the minimum hourly pay to be $15, remember, that it will apply to you, when you are blessed with a child and need to hire a nanny. Oh, and if she works for you full time — you'll need to provide her with health insurance and a few other things.
Likewise with the right to be forgotten — what you welcome for KKKorporations, may some day be applied to you. Manipulating human memories is already possible. Would you like your ex to be able to obtain a court order requiring you to undergo the procedure to make you forget the good times you two once had?
Well, drugs really are bad for both the Individual taking them and the Collective he belongs to. They may or may not be be sufficiently bad to wage a "war", but they are bad.
Google maintaining their indexing unaffected by the whims of subjects of some of the texts out there is not bad. Not at all.
This sort of logic was present and functioning on the first steam-engines! You have such a system in your toilet — it closes the water-valve, when the "sensor" detects, the tank is full...
Spinning fan will drain battery quickly. A slightly-open window will not make theft much easier — and the alarm will still go on, if the door is opened.
People do leave windows rolled-down a little on hot days as a matter of course. Would be nice, if the car could do it itself. And even close them back up, if rain starts.
I have an outside temperature sensor, that radios figures to the display unit inside. Its puny little battery lasts a year... You too can get one at Home Depot.
As I said, such sensors are already built into my car. The wipers start automatically, when the rain or snow hits the windshield.
All the hardware is already in the car. Just need to teach the existing software a new trick.
No, I want it to decide for itself — when I am not there.
The government does have unlimited pockets, but the budgets of individual prosecuting agencies is limited...
It would still force prosecutors to be more restrained. If, for example, we paid $10K for each alleged felony and $5K for each misdemeanor, the guy in TFA would've been due $440K. Well, maybe, $430 if one of the felonies was downgraded to misdemeanor. Whether the agency has money or not, making the accused rich like that is embarrassing and prosecutors would be more careful. And, maybe, some of the funds may even come from the prosecutor's own bonus...
If a hacker can do all that, why can't the car itself open the windows slightly if the temperature inside gets high and there is no rain outside? All the hardware is already there — the sensors know both the inside temperature and whether anything is hitting the windshield (so wipers can turn automatically in rain).
Would've made returning to your car in the sunny lot more comfortable and even saved some lives.
Gibberish.
Please, do stay in your own.
No. The change I propose would discourage big (guys or companies) from going after small (guys or companies) frivolously — when they don't care whether they win or lose, they just want the small to fold for fear of legal costs regardless of outcome. With my system, if you are sure of being right, you don't need to fear ruin upon winning.
What "screwed over"? The judge/jury just ruled, that the "big company" was right. The loser ought to pay — whether he is large or little. The court has ruled and found him in the wrong. Pay up.
Maybe.
If the target of the lawsuit (your hypothetical company) was forced to spend $10 million to defend itself, then, yes, $10 million it will be. Unless, maybe, the judge will tell them, they didn't need to feed 10 lawyers black caviar. But it is entirely possible that the parties' legal costs will be in different orders of magnitude — that may still be perfectly legitimate.
Now, granted, you may not be automatically entitled to all of your legal costs upon winning. But you certainly ought to be entitled to something. Something substantial. Like, say, $10K for each felony allegation, that did not hold — and $5K for each such alleged misdemeanor.
You might. And my system will help further discourage you from making a nuisance of yourself.
They can already do that, so we would not be any worse off. My proposal would not seriously help those with large legal budgets — but it will help those with small ones.