I should have been more clear. The author added links to the words of his interviewee. The interviewee had no knowledge of the hyperlinks being added to his words.
Did anybody else find it mildly ironic that the author of article added hyperlinks to the text? Admittedly, in this case, they were useful, but wasn't the addition of hyperlinks to the page without the author's knowledge one of the features that was widely critizied in the upcoming version of Internet Explorer?
Well, no, they don't. We'd like them to, but they're not going to because the problem of technical innacuracies isn't one that hurts the success of most movies. In most movies, where the point is to watch Robert Redford act or Angelina Jolie to get naked, it doesn't matter if they refer to light years as a measure of time, because the majority of the audience doesn't care, even if they do notice. It's only with the movies that are targeted at the literate population (e.g. Sneakers, Tron, Lord of the Rings) where any sort of thought is given to technical accuracy, because then people might actually listen to us about what we think of the movie.
My apologies for responding to my own post. Here is the Post's policy on publishing letters:
Letters must be exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home address and home and business telephone numbers. Because of space limitations, those published are subject to abridgment. Although we are unable to acknowledge those letters we cannot publish, we appreciate the interest and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments.
Yes, I saw that, but I wonder if the Post would print something they got from a third party. That is, would a non-computer saavy editor recognize the PGP signature and see it as valid, or just assume that I'm some wacko saying, "Yeah, Phil told me this on the street yesterday. Publish it and attribute it to him."
I wish the readership of the Post was going to be privy to Mr. Zimmerman's clarifications in the same way we/.ers are
Agreed! I know it's not really a good discussion question, but we should ask Mr. Zimmerman if we can forward his letter to the Post's editorial board. What he wrote should definitely be published.
So become a business! Put an ad on your page that says, "If you send $1,000,000(US) to my address, I will send you a drawing of a stick figure on a piece of paper." Ta da! You're now selling something. I mean, it never said you had to be a successful business, right?
I'll rephrase. Perhaps any good and profitable companies? (Companies that can embrace open source but still make money selling some other commoditity?)
Interesting. For once we hear a story about a company, a decent sized one at that, doing Good Things for a change, but it's a non-US company. Maybe the American Greed isn't such a good thing after all? Please correct me though? Are there any "good" US companies? (Or should I just get my passport fired up...)
Or sure, you won't look suspicious wearing a Superman mask or covering your face the entire time you're talking to a salesperson. Seriously, if you came into my bank wearing a mask of any kind, I'm hitting the panic button before you can say anything.
In essence, what I'm getting at is that this system has the potential for sending even the most minor crimal into complete seclusion.
Yes, it would. But that doesn't show the flaw in the camera system, but rather the legal system. In the US today (pardon my bias), there are laws against so many things that it's impossible for anybody to keep track of them. As a result, we are all minor criminals in some way. (Speeding, jaywalking, failure to yield, etc etc) It is these laws which give law enforcement the power to selectively enforce their power as they see fit. When you can be stopped for having a 'tail light out,' it is the cop who is singling you out. The camera system just gives the cop another thing to look at to see if you're 'suspicious.' If you are, but they don't want to stop you. If you are, and they do want to stop you, they can.
At the same time, however, we must accept that the power of the police is necessary. Somebody has to be responsible for dealing with the person who's breaking into your house, or who stole my car last month (grr). There has to be a presence to keep order in society or else we would tear ourselves apart. That power must be carefully kept in check, don't get me wrong, but it must be there.
He also (for what it's worth) had true hacker credentials. IIRC, he disdained the assembler for the ACE, which he helped
design, preferring to do the base 36 data manipulation directly in his head.
Which is exactly what I was trying to say. Turing probably would not have benefited tremendously from better technology.
I use a Kyocera Smartphone combination cell phone and palm pilot, and love it. I only carry one device instead of two, and can use all of the Palm tools (e.g. jpilot and the like) to edit the data for both the phone and the palm.
Makes you wonder what would have come had he lived twice as long and had the more powerful technology to play with.
I don't know. Turing's most famous accomplishment, the Turing Machine, is really a thought experiment that has very little to do with sitting down at a computer and hacking away at it.
Yes, but ICQ lets you give a user an alias that you see on the screen. You don't get messages from "1636181," they show up as "Tammy says:" Plus, It's far easier for humans to recognize the error between "Stephen" and "Stepehn" than "1636181" and "1631681"
Well, why should they have to learn a new program just to read your document? Why not let them use their favorite word processor/editor/browser/news reader/Napster client to read your data? If you write in a format that's universally understood, there is no problem.
No, XML is not a complete definition of a format by any means, and just because it's XML doesn't make it immediately compatible or even legible. But reverse engineering in XML is infinitely easier than reverse engineering something encoding a propietary format.
I can't get a job 'cause I have the 'Net,
Can't get the Net 'cause I don't have a job,
Don't you know where you are?
Lost in America
Lost in America
Lost in America, lost!
</alice-cooper >
Before everybody gets too excited, the general public isn't going to see how the FBI did it just yet. From the Judge's Order regarding what the Government has to submit: "This material shall be submitted in camera and under seal. Upon review of the government's submission, the Court will then determine whether to reconsider the procedure for disclosure as outlined in this Letter Opinion and Order."
This means that the Judge wants to see for himself exactly how the FBI device thing works. (The original government description was "gobbledegook".) From the rest of the order, however, it sounds to me like that the Judge does not believe a communications intercept has occured unless the FBI overheard Scarfo talking via a modem or other Internet connection.
In other words, IMHO it appears that the Judge is actually leaning against Scarfo, but doesn't quite understand the technology enough to make a decision. Remember, the law very narrowly defines a "communication" when talking about wiretapping...
An FBI agent swore to a judge that people at Adobe related certain facts to him about the defendant and violations of US Law.
An Assistant US Attorney (AUSA) agreed that the facts related to the FBI agent were consistent with a violation of US law.
AUSA's are evaluated based on how many of their cases are "successful" (i.e. result in good things for the government, such as jail time, guilty pleas, good press, etc.) They don't want to make themselves look bad by backing down on a case
The members of Adobe who related things to the FBI agent can be compelled to testify in court. (They enjoy no 5th Ammendment protection because they are not incriminating themselves. They are reporting the incriminating actions of the defendant.)
In view of the above, I suspect that this case will go forward, and to be honest, I expect the defendant to lose. It's a pretty clear case.
On the good news, however, it might be a good case to challenge the DMCA on appeal. We shall see.
Slashdot Mirror
And what was that quote about encryption? "If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption?"
I thought it was: If encryption is outlawed, only gcrqu2 ryfg fgegd vfwtq djxdt.
I should have been more clear. The author added links to the words of his interviewee. The interviewee had no knowledge of the hyperlinks being added to his words.
Did anybody else find it mildly ironic that the author of article added hyperlinks to the text? Admittedly, in this case, they were useful, but wasn't the addition of hyperlinks to the page without the author's knowledge one of the features that was widely critizied in the upcoming version of Internet Explorer?
Well, no, they don't. We'd like them to, but they're not going to because the problem of technical innacuracies isn't one that hurts the success of most movies. In most movies, where the point is to watch Robert Redford act or Angelina Jolie to get naked, it doesn't matter if they refer to light years as a measure of time, because the majority of the audience doesn't care, even if they do notice. It's only with the movies that are targeted at the literate population (e.g. Sneakers, Tron, Lord of the Rings) where any sort of thought is given to technical accuracy, because then people might actually listen to us about what we think of the movie.
Sorry, you can't use the word idiot anymore, rememebr? (Did they check to see if "monopoly" and "anti-trust" were in there too?)
Thus, Mr. Zimmerman needs to send it himself.
Yes, I saw that, but I wonder if the Post would print something they got from a third party. That is, would a non-computer saavy editor recognize the PGP signature and see it as valid, or just assume that I'm some wacko saying, "Yeah, Phil told me this on the street yesterday. Publish it and attribute it to him."
I'll send it in though.
Agreed! I know it's not really a good discussion question, but we should ask Mr. Zimmerman if we can forward his letter to the Post's editorial board. What he wrote should definitely be published.
So become a business! Put an ad on your page that says, "If you send $1,000,000(US) to my address, I will send you a drawing of a stick figure on a piece of paper." Ta da! You're now selling something. I mean, it never said you had to be a successful business, right?
Marketing.
I'll rephrase. Perhaps any good and profitable companies? (Companies that can embrace open source but still make money selling some other commoditity?)
Interesting. For once we hear a story about a company, a decent sized one at that, doing Good Things for a change, but it's a non-US company. Maybe the American Greed isn't such a good thing after all? Please correct me though? Are there any "good" US companies? (Or should I just get my passport fired up...)
Or sure, you won't look suspicious wearing a Superman mask or covering your face the entire time you're talking to a salesperson. Seriously, if you came into my bank wearing a mask of any kind, I'm hitting the panic button before you can say anything.
In essence, what I'm getting at is that this system has the potential for sending even the most minor crimal into complete seclusion.
Yes, it would. But that doesn't show the flaw in the camera system, but rather the legal system. In the US today (pardon my bias), there are laws against so many things that it's impossible for anybody to keep track of them. As a result, we are all minor criminals in some way. (Speeding, jaywalking, failure to yield, etc etc) It is these laws which give law enforcement the power to selectively enforce their power as they see fit. When you can be stopped for having a 'tail light out,' it is the cop who is singling you out. The camera system just gives the cop another thing to look at to see if you're 'suspicious.' If you are, but they don't want to stop you. If you are, and they do want to stop you, they can.
At the same time, however, we must accept that the power of the police is necessary. Somebody has to be responsible for dealing with the person who's breaking into your house, or who stole my car last month (grr). There has to be a presence to keep order in society or else we would tear ourselves apart. That power must be carefully kept in check, don't get me wrong, but it must be there.
He also (for what it's worth) had true hacker credentials. IIRC, he disdained the assembler for the ACE, which he helped
design, preferring to do the base 36 data manipulation directly in his head.
Which is exactly what I was trying to say. Turing probably would not have benefited tremendously from better technology.
I use a Kyocera Smartphone combination cell phone and palm pilot, and love it. I only carry one device instead of two, and can use all of the Palm tools (e.g. jpilot and the like) to edit the data for both the phone and the palm.
Makes you wonder what would have come had he lived twice as long and had the more powerful technology to play with.
I don't know. Turing's most famous accomplishment, the Turing Machine, is really a thought experiment that has very little to do with sitting down at a computer and hacking away at it.
Yes, but ICQ lets you give a user an alias that you see on the screen. You don't get messages from "1636181," they show up as "Tammy says:" Plus, It's far easier for humans to recognize the error between "Stephen" and "Stepehn" than "1636181" and "1631681"
Well, why should they have to learn a new program just to read your document? Why not let them use their favorite word processor/editor/browser/news reader/Napster client to read your data? If you write in a format that's universally understood, there is no problem.
No, XML is not a complete definition of a format by any means, and just because it's XML doesn't make it immediately compatible or even legible. But reverse engineering in XML is infinitely easier than reverse engineering something encoding a propietary format.
< alice-cooper >
/alice-cooper >
I can't get a job 'cause I have the 'Net,
Can't get the Net 'cause I don't have a job,
Don't you know where you are?
Lost in America
Lost in America
Lost in America, lost!
<
This means that the Judge wants to see for himself exactly how the FBI device thing works. (The original government description was "gobbledegook".) From the rest of the order, however, it sounds to me like that the Judge does not believe a communications intercept has occured unless the FBI overheard Scarfo talking via a modem or other Internet connection.
In other words, IMHO it appears that the Judge is actually leaning against Scarfo, but doesn't quite understand the technology enough to make a decision. Remember, the law very narrowly defines a "communication" when talking about wiretapping...
Yes, this is exactly how the system (should) work.
In view of the above, I suspect that this case will go forward, and to be honest, I expect the defendant to lose. It's a pretty clear case.
On the good news, however, it might be a good case to challenge the DMCA on appeal. We shall see.
No matter how many bits you chance, Metallica will never forgive you.