But if the owner is present during the raid, would he have to mention presence of the tripwire, or keeping the mouth shut is ok?
No, I don't think, there is a legal requirement to actively cooperate with police, however lawful their purpose. Even if they flat-out ask him about it, he can remain silent — leaving them to draw their own conclusions from it. Even if his silence is later determined to have been contemptuous, locking him up for such contempt will be pointless because the disks will already have been destroyed.
You mean as means of torture to make sure there indeed are no backups somewhere
Yes, as torture — both as punishment as well as to extract evidence. The evidence does not need to be backup — the victim may incriminate himself to stop being daily raped... I'm not at all certain, such things are actually in common practice — but we've all heard horror stories...
the moment somebody attempts to manipulate with the hardware without knowing a secret disengagement procedure, they would irrevocably destroy the data
I guess, police might accuse the owner of Destruction of Evidence — perhaps, even a conspiracy to do so, if he used somebody's help to implement it.
The accusations should be easy to fight, because such security measures may have a number of perfectly valid and legal uses. A particularly dirty prosecutor may resort to locking the accused up anyway and let it be known (unofficially), what the accusations are — counting on the rest of the prison population to "pressure" the innocent victim of his zeal.
But there will be no "contempt of court" — both because there'd be no point (nothing left to unlock), and because the deed was done (or set in motion) long before any "court" convened.
What happened to his right to remain silent, his right against self-incrimination?
As I said — it is not testimony. The jury will not hear it. The 5th Amendment protects him from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
Also... has a search warrant been issued to search his brain?
The search warrant has been issued for his disks. He is in a position to deny the police entrance to what they are lawfully allowed to search. If, as seems likely, he is doing that deliberately, then he really is in contempt of the judge, that issued the warrant.
that your right to remain silent was absolute in a criminal case?
I don't know about case law, but there is no "right to remain silent" in the Constitution. You don't have to be a witness against yourself.
asymmetric cryptography [with which] you can encrypt files without having the ability to decrypt them
Irrelevant.
Of course that's not usually the type of encryption used to secure entire drives.
Of course, it is not — and the judge is well aware of it. He had these large drives attached to your computer. They both agree, he accessed the data on them with a password. He claims, he no longer remembers the password — well, the judge happens to not believe him.
This is not a Constitutional question — the guy is not asked to testify against himself. What he is to say is not under oath and will not be used against him. What is demanded of him is a key to the premises, for which a perfectly valid search-warrant has already been issued.
That the key happens to be a word — rather than something tangible like a metal key or a thumb-print — is irrelevant and does not magically add a Constitutional protection.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Whoever it is, that created you in your belief-system, granted you your rights. It is, of course, convenient for Statists to pretend, that the government is the fount of rights instead — to make it easier to revoke them. But that's a road to tyranny — and a short one, too.
talking about a "war" on speech just confirms your bias.
I will not apologize for being biased towards liberty. The war on speech is very real, as I outlined, and has been fought before. For example:
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.
The nonsense of "gender-neutral pronouns" and "transgenderism" in general came out of nowhere — a pregnant woman coming to a hospital to give birth claims to be a man, and is offended, when referred to as "mommy" by the nurses.
Though one can not (yet!) be arrested for making others "uncomfortable" with one's opinion, one may already be fired for same.
"Hate speech" is already illegal in many Westerncountries — with movement afoot to bring the same oppression into the US.
Though the Bill of Rights is still, supposedly, the law of the land, its treatment has changed:
“This isn’t really the ’60s anymore [...] people can’t really protest like that anymore.”
The "right to be forgotten", having never existed before, is suddenly "a thing". Can't wait to discuss the court-ordered memory-erasures on SlashDot...
Clearly, the art of polite conversation is not for you. Why don't you simply go fuck yourself? In fact, have a threesome — with a broomstick and a plunger, mok?..
What do you think will happen when they "accidentally" break the --enable-alsa?
I'll file a bug-report. Probably, with a patch included.
Nobody building firefox for reasons other than purely masturbatory will ever bother to use an unsupported config for such a bloated, fragile and messy piece of shit.
I see, that it is not enough for you to simply use the browser compiled by others. You must continuously suppress the doubt gnawing on your ego by bitching at others...
The quoted statement can be applied to not just the browser, but the entire open-source movement... Maybe, it just is not your thing?..
Great excuse. I tried something similar that time I wrote a poem in a physics exam
Except in my case it is not an "excuse", but the reason. For me English is the third language... Though I did study it in school, it was desultory and concentrated mostly on vocabulary and things like Past Perfect Tense. I only started picking it up for real after immigrating.
Perhaps more importantly, my (heavier than is customary these days) usage of commas may not be as wrong as is alleged by the haters. Consider, for example, this quote:
"When forced to assume [self-government], we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established, however, some, although not all its important principles." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:44
Commas around words like "however" and before "although" come naturally to people used to write in Ukrainian (and Russian), but most English writing today would omit them. Because you can't agree among yourselves on how they are used, and various books on grammar contradict each other and inevitably offend some of the experts.
They told me to fuck off, and I'm passing it on.
Keep it. Writing essays is how students learn Physics in America's wonderful public schools these days.
So, now a "web-browser" is part of an opertaing systemafter all? Didn't we have a legal case some years back to decide this, the entire SlashDot crowd cheering the "no it is not" side of the argument?
distribution families give users the option to download packages that contain source code instead of executable code
The lousy implementation — whereby the original author's source code is itself repackaged inside the SRPM — is, likely, the turn-off for many. Because it makes it harder than necessary to "tinker". For example, I can edit a FreeBSD ports Makefile easily and bump the upstream version number — this is a lot more tedious to do than with an SRPM. Also, to pick build-options (WITH_ALSA, WITHOUT_PULSEAUDIO) requires looking inside the.spec file and typing a very long command-line, whereas with ports it is an interactive screen with checkboxes and radio-buttons...
Though the option is there, it's just rarely used by end users.
Which brings us right back, full circle, to the question I posited up above: "why would you use an open-source application without compiling it yourself"? I know, such people exist, I just don't understand their motivations...
If you are unable or unwilling to rebuild a browser from source, you've come to the wrong Web-site...
disabling an option is usually a prelude to removing it completely
It is not disabled. It was turned off by default — because it is useless for most users, as TFA mentions. Lots of other options are off by default — such as --with-system-foo:
--with-system-libevent
--with-system-graphite2
--with-system-harfbuzz
--with-system-icu
--with-system-jpeg=/opt
--with-system-nspr
--with-system-nss
--with-system-png=/opt
--with-system-libvpx
--with-system-vorbis
--with-system-ogg
--with-system-zlib
--with-system-bz2
— and have been for years, for example. But their being off does not mean, the ability to use the already installed JPEG or BZ2 libraries will go away. Ever...
I can think of three ways to obtain a copy of GCC in executable form
The topic was not, how to obtain a compiler, but whether or not to compile an application — Firefox — from source. The compiler is part of the operating system — if it is any good, anyway... The bootstrapping of compiler — and whether it can be trusted — is a fine theoretical discussion, but that's not, what I was talking about...
A program usually depends on the presence of several other programs, often called "libraries".
Libraries, most certainly, aren't programs. But, yes, I get it — there are dependencies.
But most people prefer the convenience of using a program that automates finding and installing libraries on which a program depends, as well as automating repeating the process when the author publishes one or more security updates for said program.
Yes, automation is where it is at, and computers are especially good at it — if they are good at anything.
But automation does not imply usage of pre-built binaries. Far from it. That very search for the zip/tar-balls, the downloading of same, extraction, patching, configuring (this is where you'd enable things like ALSA!), compiling, installing (and preparing for uninstall) can all be automated as well...
Indeed, this is exactly, how FreeBSD does it with its "ports" system — admiringly replicated by pkgsrc, MacOS' "macports", and some Linux systems (such as portage).
If all you've got on your choice of OS is either using binaries somebody else compiled for you or a completely unaided manual rebuild, your choice was really poor...
Lawmakers — and SlashDot editors — should stick to "stuff that matters". No other laws should even be evaluated, until the "Obamacare" disaster is properly abolished — with or without a replacement...
They've passed such repeals six times while Obama was President — and could be relied on to veto it. Now that Trump is eager to sign it as soon as it hits his desk, they've become "thoughtful" seeing "nuances"...
Meanwhile, regulating the seat-sizes?.. Seriously?
To actively provide less value, as in crippleware, is an immoral act.
Though I'm prepared to neither debate nor agree with the "immoral" part myself, it certainly seems like this would've been the prevailing opinion, had this been a practice by an ISP, a cellular phone company, a computer-maker, or a DVD-publisher. Businesses, SlashDot's Illiberals love to hate...
why would you use an open-source application without compiling it yourself?
Because you need an executable compiler to bootstrap compiling everything else yourself.
Non sequitur.
not source packages
What's a "Source Package"? Is that the release zip/tar-ball, that the software's author published? Why do you need a "package manager" to download it?..
I suggest you try looking less to the future, and more to the past
Handing out copies of the Constitution on campus was disallowed recently by the university officials:
“This isn’t really the ’60s anymore... people can’t really protest like that anymore.”
See? Ostensibly, the Bill of Rights in general and the First Amendment in particular are still the Law of the Land. But in reality they no longer work as they used to. Our republic is barely 200 years old. Things have already changed a lot since its inception, and continue changing. Not all of the change is good...
Well, that was a mathematically-interesting story. And today the individual subscriber match part of TFA is interesting too, even for those of us, who do not use Netflix:
Netflix is also introducing a new percent-match feature that shows how good of a match any given show or movie is for an individual subscriber
If on the other hand, I deliberately try to serve cookies containing peanuts to you, knowing you're deathly allergic to peanuts
Peanut allergy is real. So, apparently, is the effect of strobing images on epileptics. But it is still worrying...
Recall, that "trigger warnings" are already "a thing". What if my political opinion "triggers" somebody — causing them pain and/or other suffering? For now, such snowflakes are content to escape the brutal realities of life in "safe spaces". Unfortunately, those prolifereate and are already used to silence certain opinions.
True, FBI is not yet used to go after the "triggering" folks, but that can't be far off. When the current crop of students enters real life and their careers place (some of) them into actual decision-making positions, Law Enforcement will equate such triggering with assault — and doctors, currently in pre-med at those same campuses, will certify in court that the "victims'" "pain" is real...
Oh, and did you know, movement is seriously afoot to make "hate speech" a crime too?
tell someone that my intention is to do you harm
Yep. Right here... I do consider certain Illiberals to be beyond repair and do wish to make them uncomfortable — my very/. signatures are designed to mock something they hold dear. Intentionally.
Whatever this intent says about my own character flaws, it is still protected by the First Amendment today. But we are already sliding down the slippery slope... The First Amendment may be protecting a nebulous "right" to sell pornography (except for the child sort, for some reason), as well as to (quietly!) video-tape police. But, if the current trends aren't reversed, it will — in a generation — become illegal to say certain things because of the "painful reaction" such speech might cause...
Yeah, and beef is more useful than wood chips. Ultimately, the cost is energy — and our star is still shining very bright and hot. We are still using a tiny fraction of what Sol outputs...
Plus there's the issue where much of the water we "use" comes from groundwater sources, which can be completely non-renewable on any sort of human timescale.
Why would one seek to "renew" it at all? Water under ground is just not useful...
It takes about 2,500 gallons of water to produce just a pound of beef
Am I the only reminded of Azimov's The Martian Way? I mean the part, where an Earth's politician is explaining to electorate, how much water (used as reaction mass) it takes for a spaceship to get into space. The book's main characters observe, that most of the water so used falls right back onto the planet. But at least, in that novel some amount of water, however minuscule compared to Earth's vast oceans, does leave...
Well, in case of meat production — or indeed any other Earth-bound activity — no water is lost. Zero. Nada. So, what is the quoted statement supposed to mean?
Slashdot Mirror
No, I don't think, there is a legal requirement to actively cooperate with police, however lawful their purpose. Even if they flat-out ask him about it, he can remain silent — leaving them to draw their own conclusions from it. Even if his silence is later determined to have been contemptuous, locking him up for such contempt will be pointless because the disks will already have been destroyed.
Yes, as torture — both as punishment as well as to extract evidence. The evidence does not need to be backup — the victim may incriminate himself to stop being daily raped... I'm not at all certain, such things are actually in common practice — but we've all heard horror stories...
Not in this case. We aren't talking about black holes or climate changes — things, that can not be easily observed and examined by experiments.
He just needs to offer a working line of batteries for sale. Nothing extraordinary about that...
(He can even call them "Shipstones" for all I care.)
I guess, police might accuse the owner of Destruction of Evidence — perhaps, even a conspiracy to do so, if he used somebody's help to implement it.
The accusations should be easy to fight, because such security measures may have a number of perfectly valid and legal uses. A particularly dirty prosecutor may resort to locking the accused up anyway and let it be known (unofficially), what the accusations are — counting on the rest of the prison population to "pressure" the innocent victim of his zeal.
But there will be no "contempt of court" — both because there'd be no point (nothing left to unlock), and because the deed was done (or set in motion) long before any "court" convened.
As I said — it is not testimony. The jury will not hear it. The 5th Amendment protects him from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
The search warrant has been issued for his disks. He is in a position to deny the police entrance to what they are lawfully allowed to search. If, as seems likely, he is doing that deliberately, then he really is in contempt of the judge, that issued the warrant.
I don't know about case law, but there is no "right to remain silent" in the Constitution. You don't have to be a witness against yourself.
Irrelevant.
Of course, it is not — and the judge is well aware of it. He had these large drives attached to your computer. They both agree, he accessed the data on them with a password. He claims, he no longer remembers the password — well, the judge happens to not believe him.
This is not a Constitutional question — the guy is not asked to testify against himself. What he is to say is not under oath and will not be used against him. What is demanded of him is a key to the premises, for which a perfectly valid search-warrant has already been issued.
That the key happens to be a word — rather than something tangible like a metal key or a thumb-print — is irrelevant and does not magically add a Constitutional protection.
What? How are the sticks and the stones equivalent to name-calling?!
Nope. Emphasis mine:
Whoever it is, that created you in your belief-system, granted you your rights. It is, of course, convenient for Statists to pretend, that the government is the fount of rights instead — to make it easier to revoke them. But that's a road to tyranny — and a short one, too.
I will not apologize for being biased towards liberty. The war on speech is very real, as I outlined, and has been fought before. For example:
This seems like a remake of an earlier-discussed movie, where:
I wonder, if this current remake will have a different the ending — AirBNB is generally liked here, unlike the ISPs...
Gone are the days of:
The Illiberal Left's War on Speech continues and we've almost lost it... Major positions have been surrendered without or with little fight:
Clearly, the art of polite conversation is not for you. Why don't you simply go fuck yourself? In fact, have a threesome — with a broomstick and a plunger, mok?..
I'll file a bug-report. Probably, with a patch included.
I see, that it is not enough for you to simply use the browser compiled by others. You must continuously suppress the doubt gnawing on your ego by bitching at others...
The quoted statement can be applied to not just the browser, but the entire open-source movement... Maybe, it just is not your thing?..
Except in my case it is not an "excuse", but the reason. For me English is the third language... Though I did study it in school, it was desultory and concentrated mostly on vocabulary and things like Past Perfect Tense. I only started picking it up for real after immigrating.
Perhaps more importantly, my (heavier than is customary these days) usage of commas may not be as wrong as is alleged by the haters. Consider, for example, this quote:
Commas around words like "however" and before "although" come naturally to people used to write in Ukrainian (and Russian), but most English writing today would omit them. Because you can't agree among yourselves on how they are used, and various books on grammar contradict each other and inevitably offend some of the experts.
Keep it. Writing essays is how students learn Physics in America's wonderful public schools these days.
So, now a "web-browser" is part of an opertaing system after all? Didn't we have a legal case some years back to decide this, the entire SlashDot crowd cheering the "no it is not" side of the argument?
The lousy implementation — whereby the original author's source code is itself repackaged inside the SRPM — is, likely, the turn-off for many. Because it makes it harder than necessary to "tinker". For example, I can edit a FreeBSD ports Makefile easily and bump the upstream version number — this is a lot more tedious to do than with an SRPM. Also, to pick build-options (WITH_ALSA, WITHOUT_PULSEAUDIO) requires looking inside the .spec file and typing a very long command-line, whereas with ports it is an interactive screen with checkboxes and radio-buttons...
Which brings us right back, full circle, to the question I posited up above: "why would you use an open-source application without compiling it yourself"? I know, such people exist, I just don't understand their motivations...
If you are unable or unwilling to rebuild a browser from source, you've come to the wrong Web-site...
It is not disabled. It was turned off by default — because it is useless for most users, as TFA mentions. Lots of other options are off by default — such as --with-system- foo:
— and have been for years, for example. But their being off does not mean, the ability to use the already installed JPEG or BZ2 libraries will go away. Ever...
The topic was not, how to obtain a compiler, but whether or not to compile an application — Firefox — from source. The compiler is part of the operating system — if it is any good, anyway... The bootstrapping of compiler — and whether it can be trusted — is a fine theoretical discussion, but that's not, what I was talking about...
Libraries, most certainly, aren't programs. But, yes, I get it — there are dependencies.
Yes, automation is where it is at, and computers are especially good at it — if they are good at anything.
But automation does not imply usage of pre-built binaries. Far from it. That very search for the zip/tar-balls, the downloading of same, extraction, patching, configuring (this is where you'd enable things like ALSA!), compiling, installing (and preparing for uninstall) can all be automated as well...
Indeed, this is exactly, how FreeBSD does it with its "ports" system — admiringly replicated by pkgsrc, MacOS' "macports", and some Linux systems (such as portage).
If all you've got on your choice of OS is either using binaries somebody else compiled for you or a completely unaided manual rebuild, your choice was really poor...
Lawmakers — and SlashDot editors — should stick to "stuff that matters". No other laws should even be evaluated, until the "Obamacare" disaster is properly abolished — with or without a replacement...
They've passed such repeals six times while Obama was President — and could be relied on to veto it. Now that Trump is eager to sign it as soon as it hits his desk, they've become "thoughtful" seeing "nuances"...
Meanwhile, regulating the seat-sizes?.. Seriously?
Though I'm prepared to neither debate nor agree with the "immoral" part myself, it certainly seems like this would've been the prevailing opinion, had this been a practice by an ISP, a cellular phone company, a computer-maker, or a DVD-publisher. Businesses, SlashDot's Illiberals love to hate...
But Elon Musk? He can do no wrong...
Non sequitur.
What's a "Source Package"? Is that the release zip/tar-ball, that the software's author published? Why do you need a "package manager" to download it?..
Handing out copies of the Constitution on campus was disallowed recently by the university officials:
See? Ostensibly, the Bill of Rights in general and the First Amendment in particular are still the Law of the Land. But in reality they no longer work as they used to. Our republic is barely 200 years old. Things have already changed a lot since its inception, and continue changing. Not all of the change is good...
But the change from stars to thumbs?..
A web-site changes its interface... Stuff that matters? Seriously?
Peanut allergy is real. So, apparently, is the effect of strobing images on epileptics. But it is still worrying...
Recall, that "trigger warnings" are already "a thing". What if my political opinion "triggers" somebody — causing them pain and/or other suffering? For now, such snowflakes are content to escape the brutal realities of life in "safe spaces". Unfortunately, those prolifereate and are already used to silence certain opinions.
True, FBI is not yet used to go after the "triggering" folks, but that can't be far off. When the current crop of students enters real life and their careers place (some of) them into actual decision-making positions, Law Enforcement will equate such triggering with assault — and doctors, currently in pre-med at those same campuses, will certify in court that the "victims'" "pain" is real...
Oh, and did you know, movement is seriously afoot to make "hate speech" a crime too?
Yep. Right here... I do consider certain Illiberals to be beyond repair and do wish to make them uncomfortable — my very /. signatures are designed to mock something they hold dear. Intentionally.
Whatever this intent says about my own character flaws, it is still protected by the First Amendment today. But we are already sliding down the slippery slope... The First Amendment may be protecting a nebulous "right" to sell pornography (except for the child sort, for some reason), as well as to (quietly!) video-tape police. But, if the current trends aren't reversed, it will — in a generation — become illegal to say certain things because of the "painful reaction" such speech might cause...
And always has been...
But why is it up to anyone — why would you use an open-source application without compiling it yourself?
Yeah, and beef is more useful than wood chips. Ultimately, the cost is energy — and our star is still shining very bright and hot. We are still using a tiny fraction of what Sol outputs...
Why would one seek to "renew" it at all? Water under ground is just not useful...
Am I the only reminded of Azimov's The Martian Way? I mean the part, where an Earth's politician is explaining to electorate, how much water (used as reaction mass) it takes for a spaceship to get into space. The book's main characters observe, that most of the water so used falls right back onto the planet. But at least, in that novel some amount of water, however minuscule compared to Earth's vast oceans, does leave...
Well, in case of meat production — or indeed any other Earth-bound activity — no water is lost. Zero. Nada. So, what is the quoted statement supposed to mean?
This is simply not true:
Quite obviously, ALSA remains an option...