Not really. A valid, non forgeable ID (see vaporware, n.) indicates that you have proven that you are the person describes on the card. It doesn't mean you are that person for 1, 2, or 4 years. Requiring renewing an ID is nothing more than taxation. If you have an old drivers license and don't drive anymore, there's not a great reason to renew it. Oddly, some people do seem to believe that an expired license is less of an identifier. I'm not sure why that's so, other than perhaps you're more likely to find a discarded expired ID. But then, that just goes to the point that they're not terribly hard to forge anyway.
Re:OSS Test Harnesses? OSS Test Suites?
on
Kernel 2.4.12 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
And this one of open source software's shortcomings. The important parts which aren't fun to do often aren't done or aren't done well. This IS a problem. Commercial software overcomes this by introducing an evil construct called a manager which makes you do the not fun stuff anyway.
My pet complaint is documentation which is sometimes barely there at all. Saying, as some do, "Well, what did you pay for it?" implying that its "free beer" status excuses this doesn't cut it when we're also saying "Hey, ditch your proprietary commercial stuff and use this instead!" We should coin a new acronym. WITFM. Where is the F#%@#*@ manual?
We bash M$ when they turn out buggy products and declare that they don't have a quality software process. The same is true of open source. The problem isn't closed source and the solution isn't open source. Both sides simply need to use a stronger process if they're to produce quality software.
Ok fine, get out of the database - While you're at it, get out of the house you're living in because you're not gonna get a mortgage to buy it with without your credit history in the database.
You picked a poor example. I can reconcile myself to corporate tracking of my debt payment habits. I find that a reasonable tradeoff for easier credit. I have a huge problem with my ISP (Time Wormer) having the absolute inability to manage without my SSN. I have a problem with stores tracking every purchase I make and tying them to me, not John Customer #235235632. I don't mind potential creditors knowing how likely I am to repay. I mind the fact that someone, somewhere knows every magazine I subscribe to, what sorts of books I buy, how often I eat Twinkies, my current and past medical condition, my address, phone number, how many kids I have and how old they are, and the list goes on. Worst of all, in many cases they're free to do WHATEVER they want with that data. I should be able to buy a DDJ, a WSJ, or a Playboy and have that info not go beyond the clerk, even if I don't use cash. I should be able to have genetic screenings performed without worrying that they might find something which would make getting life insurance harder, or impossible, or make getting a job more difficult. I should be able to eat Twinkies to my heart's content (actually I despise 'em, but that's beside the point) without wondering how long it'll be before the supermarket and my life insurance co partner and modify my rates based on my diet. Don't laugh, some people have seriously proposed it.
As always, there's a line of "reasonableness", for lack of a better word, which shouldn't be crossed.
And as always, it doesn't take the government to make this happen. It takes nothing more than enough of us saying no. No you can't have my SSN unless you have a legitimate use for it, no you can't examine my medical records before offering me a job, no I won't let you track my purchases in exchange for a so-called customer loyalty discount card, no I won't be your customer if you can't respect my privacy!
If there isn't a torrent of letters and phone calls while such things still matter, each and every one of us will deserve whatever we get. Get off your as^H^Hslashdot and get on the phone, get a letter written, and get it to the post office. Now. These guys are intent on "protecting" us no matter how much harm they do in the process.
On a serious note, the purpose of a gun is to propel a projectile at a high velocity.
In all fairness, and if I remember my history correctly, the original intent and purpose of a firearm IS to kill people. Back to my original point, that's not always a bad thing. If you're on the front lines of some battlefield facing an enemy intent on killing you, having a firearm handy is an excellent thing. Being physically frail and having one on hand when a group of young thugs breaks down your door, as recently happened not so very many miles from where I write this, is also an excellent thing. Being a child and having one on hand to darwinate the slob beating the h*#@ out of your mother, again, is an excellent thing. Its unfortunate, but better than losing a parent.
To respond to the post you responded to, I can't think of many things that are "ONLY" purposed to "KILL people". Those I can I'd class as implements of war, where you're already in a situation in which you've decided killing people is really the only option.
David Brin's vision is an excellent example of fiction ignoring reality. If only everyone could watch everyone else it would be ok. Nice theory, however there's no reason whatsoever to believe that's true. Sadly we're really good at naive social experiments of this sort. Let's jump off the cliff and figure out where we'll land later. The ways in which this can be abused are innumerable. It is, for example, a perfect stalker tool.
Brin's vision is interesting, but naive. That's the peril of smart, well meaning people devising ideas like this. Public access of ubiquitous surveillance would be used for negative purposes. That's beyond even making voyeurism a public value. If you think that wouldn't happen you clearly haven't watched the absolute trash the American public enjoys watching on TV.
You write as if a "real, material item that kills people" is necessarily bad. If so, ban cars. Ban alcohol. Especially alcohol since, IMO, it has no redeeming qualities. Crypto and guns are both just tools which can be misused. Naive people who don't want to be shot think giving up guns they don't have will make them safe. Thinking people who don't want to get shot understand that the way to make that not happen is to protect yourself. That false sense of security feels so good people are willing to wrap themselves in it and ignore reality.
Passing on whether or not that's true, commercialism does very often go too far. Advertising is fine with me, in its place. I don't mind seeing it on TV, in print, on billboards, etc, but I do very much mind seeing it on me. I don't want to wear someone's corporate logo unless they're sponsoring me. I don't want car dealerships sticking their logo on my car unless they're paying me for the advertising.
In other words, advertising TO me is fine. Advertising ON me is not.
I'm drawing a distinction between the law and what can happen as a matter of practice. To say they can't do it would require that they provide evidence of cause first. In any case, that was just an example of how we've granted a group of people certain powers over us in exchange for security.
My point remains the same, though. All these things I'd only even consider if I thought there was any chance they'd help. National IDs won't do it, restrictions on domestic use of encryption won't do it, internal passports won't do it.
I don't entirely agree with that. I might well be willing to present my papers if it meant 7,000 people continuing to live. I certainly can't ask my kids to make that sacrifice.
Of course I think that point is moot because a national ID card isn't going to help. That's the stand I'm willing to take. I won't sacrifice freedom when it won't make any difference anyway. Show me an instance where it will and I'll consider it. We all do this already. We lose a little freedom by having police, for example, who can stop you at will and lock you up for 24 or 48 hours. We gain enough security from that that most of us accept the trade off. A national ID card won't offer similar benefits.
For starters, I wouldn't violate my customer's fair use rights.
I don't pirate music or software. I have, however, had lots of CDs broken, scratched, etc. I *do* have a right to make a copy of any CD I buy. I *don't* have a right to give it away, but since I just don't do that anyway it really motivates me to stop buying CDs altogether.
Oh, wait a minute, RIAA convinced me to do that a couple years ago already. Oh well, nevermind. They've already pushed me away from buying music altogether.:)
Of *course* Microsoft runs the net. IIS is the dominant webserver. IE is the dominant web browser. You don't read your advertising, do you? I still remember reading the ads for IE's debut on Solaris. Remember their slogan? "Bringing the web to Unix." It's not often I fall out of my chair laughing, but that merited it.:)
You're correct, of course. I don't know if there is any specific action we can take to prevent the entire range of possibilities. On first glance, I doubt it. Still, it's reasonable to guard against the likely and the high impact events. I'm still opposed to a U.S. where you have to swipe your government issued national ID card to get on the subway, into a school (although a school ID might be reasonable, provided it doesn't bar entry to parents), or sporting events.
Fundamentally you're saying we're not safe. That's true. In fact we never were. We were just naive. Well, most of us were, anyway.
I would allow it if it were completely voluntary. I know, I know, it really wouldn't be voluntary if you couldn't get on a plane without one, but I don't know how to make this place safe, and there don't seem to be too many alternatives at this point.
Oh, I don't know, how about not letting knives and box cutters on the airlines? How about armed air marshalls? How about armed passengers? There are quite a few options that don't involve violating nearly 300 million Americans. How about denying ourselves the completely unjustifiable complacency we enjoy? 248 passengers couldn't be overpowered by 18 hijackers if those 248 were aware on a daily basis that they may be called upon to defend their lives. Some passengers apparently did defend themselves, and I have a deeper respect for them than I can ever convey. Attacks like this would be much harder to perpetrate if we were all prepared to take such action.
Surely you see the problem. Very strict guidelines? We have privacy violations that are outright illegal which happen anyway. For example, IRS agents can't look up celebrity tax info for fun, yet apparently they do anyway. You should start worrying whenever you say "If it's not abused, it shouldn't be a problem." Look around. It will be abused. Then we'll be told "Hey, we're tracking you anyway, and its for your own good, so just go about your business." Sound familiar?
The difference between what you are describing and a drivers license is that you aren't required to always have your license with you, only when driving.
And truth be told, its not even a big deal to NOT have it with you while driving. Not to be confused with not being a LICENSED DRIVER, which is a very major deal. Not carrying your license is a very minor fine (less than probably everyone reading this makes in an hour). I'm not advocating anyone do this, but having made the mistake and paid the fine myself, I can say no great big deal is made of it. It's quite a far cry from legislating that I must always carry ID.
And btw, with regards to the terrorist attack, if the airports check your fingerprints (for all passengers, which would suck) and match that against the card/national database, you would know for certain who was on the plane.
It's never that simple. You're assuming the database and the people running it are absolutely secure and uncorruptible. I have zero doubt that for the right amount of money you could get a card with any name and fingerprint you want, with your picture on it. It's happened with driver's licenses. You're falling into the "government is perfect" fallacy. They're predominantly well meaning, but anything with so many employees will have some bad apples. I don't even need to speak to the security of the system itself. Its a given it'll be compromised.
Imagine the identity theft joys when some criminal is out there with your ID, and everyone knows its secure because its biometric, right?
That's where this gets complicated. I can fully support security enhancements which help avoid September 11 occurrences, while not violating the principles this country[0] stands for. Having to use it to get into a restaurant probably woudn't happen. Having to use it to get a credit card would. Customer loyalty (*cough* *sputter*) programs like supermarkets are currently obsessed with would REALLY try hard to get it[1]. It'll be required to get a drivers license, so anything requiring a drivers license also gets a link to this national ID.
That's just not at all where I want to go. I'd like to buy a loaf of bread without making an entry in somebody's database that SecurityGuy buys 1.34 loaves of bread per week, always brand X, 90% of the time at store Y, only 10% at store Z. I want to go in to a restaurant without having to tell them who I am. There's this dangerous public misperception that all these little invasions are innocuous. They aren't. The U.S. government should be one who well understands this since they're occasionally embarrased by publications of classified information which was never really disclosed, only inferred from a collection of unclassified or declassified data. Before you say this isn't really so bad, volunteer to live your life with no privacy. Those in the public eye who get to live their life in the metaphorical fishbowl don't seem to enjoy it.
[0] - US centric, I know. I write from my perspective.
[1] - One wanted my drivers license number, which I wouldn't give unless they're going to let me drive their delivery truck to my house.:) Another wanted my SSN. Happily I now have an anonymous one.:) You don't need to uniquely identify me among everyone on the planet to play the customer loyalty game. Assign a random number and make it counterproductive for me to have multiple cards.
How else are they supposed to make a decision on whether or not to extend credit to you?
Credit references, perhaps? This is one of those dubious arguments which infer that I'm required to do something because it is to my benefit. If so, why not just let me decide? "We'd like your SSN, otherwise we won't be able to report your credit, and the positive credit history we're sure you'll have with us won't benefit you in the future. Would you give your number?"
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think this would be such a bad idea. As Ellison said in the article, all we would be giving up is the "illusion" that we can't be tracked.
You're missing the fact that courts have determined, and some legislation has enacted, a real right to privacy which things like this erode. We have a right to have things about us NOT known. Sure, technology is pushing the limits on this, but it remains important to retain the right. To provide a coarse example, my infrared camera might allow me to determine intimate details of your life. Larry Ellisons out there might say we may as well abandon the right to privacy because you don't really have it anyway, but I'd much rather maintain the right and be able to do nasty legal things to people who infringe it.
The nerve of such an argument is appalling. "Forget privacy, we're tracking you anyway, so you may as well go along." What a testiment to the spinelessness of our society. Rather than demanding the tracking be reined in, we dumbly nod our heads and say "Uhh, ok...".
...is that its always helpful when people show their true colors. I've had Oracle on my list of useful technology to learn, but no longer. Much as I'm not the rabid open source advocate, I'm being given little choice between Larry "National ID" Ellison and Scott "All your privacy are belong to us!" McNealy. I can only advocate technology that isn't advocated by its maker to harm me.
And yes, I consider anything which facilitates a police state to be harm. A true national ID will be used to tie you to EVERYTHING, just like other near national IDs are now. That level of tracking is simply not justifiable.
Airplane hijackings arent the only place where this would be useful
So you're asserting they *would* be useful in airline hijackings? The hijackers weren't U.S. citizens, so I'd assume they wouldn't have had US ID cards. Or do you intend to require an ID to board a plane. Kinda kills tourism. Come to the US, where you'll STAY until your ID card is ready! How long does it take to get a passport again?
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people passing out "child wisdom" as if it is applicable to the real world. "Violence doesn't solve anything", for example. Scolding Japan in 1941 sure wouldn't have worked, while dropping nuclear bombs on them in 1945 worked wonders.
Finding fault isn't necessarily a childish endeavor. It lets you identify the weak parts of a system and manage those weaknesses. For example, IIS will be installed at my orkplace over my cold, dead body.:) If it filled some critical need, you'd better believe it'd be tightly managed. I'm not saying MS is evil, I'm saying their products tend to have *cough* undocumented "features". Manage them with this in mind, or suffer the consequences.
Maybe we should make them all wear little stars of david.
Of course I don't support such a policy. I'm just stunned that 49% of my countrymen do. I'm sure that 49% and more have no idea which other country and when this "mark everyone of a certain kind" policy was used. The effect then was massively worse than 5k dead. Try something like 22 million before all was done.
Once upon a time we were actually capable of rational, intelligent discourse. Now we're reduced to talking about who has the most revealing dress at the emmys, oscars, whatever (no, I don't watch any of them).
The sad truth it 99% of Americans will answer a poll or support or oppose a bill without knowing anything whatsoever about the issue.
They won't laugh at all. They'll receive their instructions from the judge, that violating the ban on encryption without a backdoor is illegal regardless of the content, and that if they find you did create or use such encryption, they must find you guilty. You'll go to jail and you won't laugh either.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. A valid, non forgeable ID (see vaporware, n.) indicates that you have proven that you are the person describes on the card. It doesn't mean you are that person for 1, 2, or 4 years. Requiring renewing an ID is nothing more than taxation. If you have an old drivers license and don't drive anymore, there's not a great reason to renew it. Oddly, some people do seem to believe that an expired license is less of an identifier. I'm not sure why that's so, other than perhaps you're more likely to find a discarded expired ID. But then, that just goes to the point that they're not terribly hard to forge anyway.
My pet complaint is documentation which is sometimes barely there at all. Saying, as some do, "Well, what did you pay for it?" implying that its "free beer" status excuses this doesn't cut it when we're also saying "Hey, ditch your proprietary commercial stuff and use this instead!" We should coin a new acronym. WITFM. Where is the F#%@#*@ manual?
We bash M$ when they turn out buggy products and declare that they don't have a quality software process. The same is true of open source. The problem isn't closed source and the solution isn't open source. Both sides simply need to use a stronger process if they're to produce quality software.
You picked a poor example. I can reconcile myself to corporate tracking of my debt payment habits. I find that a reasonable tradeoff for easier credit. I have a huge problem with my ISP (Time Wormer) having the absolute inability to manage without my SSN. I have a problem with stores tracking every purchase I make and tying them to me, not John Customer #235235632. I don't mind potential creditors knowing how likely I am to repay. I mind the fact that someone, somewhere knows every magazine I subscribe to, what sorts of books I buy, how often I eat Twinkies, my current and past medical condition, my address, phone number, how many kids I have and how old they are, and the list goes on. Worst of all, in many cases they're free to do WHATEVER they want with that data. I should be able to buy a DDJ, a WSJ, or a Playboy and have that info not go beyond the clerk, even if I don't use cash. I should be able to have genetic screenings performed without worrying that they might find something which would make getting life insurance harder, or impossible, or make getting a job more difficult. I should be able to eat Twinkies to my heart's content (actually I despise 'em, but that's beside the point) without wondering how long it'll be before the supermarket and my life insurance co partner and modify my rates based on my diet. Don't laugh, some people have seriously proposed it.
As always, there's a line of "reasonableness", for lack of a better word, which shouldn't be crossed.
And as always, it doesn't take the government to make this happen. It takes nothing more than enough of us saying no. No you can't have my SSN unless you have a legitimate use for it, no you can't examine my medical records before offering me a job, no I won't let you track my purchases in exchange for a so-called customer loyalty discount card, no I won't be your customer if you can't respect my privacy!
If there isn't a torrent of letters and phone calls while such things still matter, each and every one of us will deserve whatever we get. Get off your as^H^Hslashdot and get on the phone, get a letter written, and get it to the post office. Now. These guys are intent on "protecting" us no matter how much harm they do in the process.
In all fairness, and if I remember my history correctly, the original intent and purpose of a firearm IS to kill people. Back to my original point, that's not always a bad thing. If you're on the front lines of some battlefield facing an enemy intent on killing you, having a firearm handy is an excellent thing. Being physically frail and having one on hand when a group of young thugs breaks down your door, as recently happened not so very many miles from where I write this, is also an excellent thing. Being a child and having one on hand to darwinate the slob beating the h*#@ out of your mother, again, is an excellent thing. Its unfortunate, but better than losing a parent.
To respond to the post you responded to, I can't think of many things that are "ONLY" purposed to "KILL people". Those I can I'd class as implements of war, where you're already in a situation in which you've decided killing people is really the only option.
Brin's vision is interesting, but naive. That's the peril of smart, well meaning people devising ideas like this. Public access of ubiquitous surveillance would be used for negative purposes. That's beyond even making voyeurism a public value. If you think that wouldn't happen you clearly haven't watched the absolute trash the American public enjoys watching on TV.
Count me out.
You write as if a "real, material item that kills people" is necessarily bad. If so, ban cars. Ban alcohol. Especially alcohol since, IMO, it has no redeeming qualities. Crypto and guns are both just tools which can be misused. Naive people who don't want to be shot think giving up guns they don't have will make them safe. Thinking people who don't want to get shot understand that the way to make that not happen is to protect yourself. That false sense of security feels so good people are willing to wrap themselves in it and ignore reality.
Passing on whether or not that's true, commercialism does very often go too far. Advertising is fine with me, in its place. I don't mind seeing it on TV, in print, on billboards, etc, but I do very much mind seeing it on me. I don't want to wear someone's corporate logo unless they're sponsoring me. I don't want car dealerships sticking their logo on my car unless they're paying me for the advertising.
In other words, advertising TO me is fine. Advertising ON me is not.
I'm drawing a distinction between the law and what can happen as a matter of practice. To say they can't do it would require that they provide evidence of cause first. In any case, that was just an example of how we've granted a group of people certain powers over us in exchange for security.
My point remains the same, though. All these things I'd only even consider if I thought there was any chance they'd help. National IDs won't do it, restrictions on domestic use of encryption won't do it, internal passports won't do it.
Of course I think that point is moot because a national ID card isn't going to help. That's the stand I'm willing to take. I won't sacrifice freedom when it won't make any difference anyway. Show me an instance where it will and I'll consider it. We all do this already. We lose a little freedom by having police, for example, who can stop you at will and lock you up for 24 or 48 hours. We gain enough security from that that most of us accept the trade off. A national ID card won't offer similar benefits.
I don't pirate music or software. I have, however, had lots of CDs broken, scratched, etc. I *do* have a right to make a copy of any CD I buy. I *don't* have a right to give it away, but since I just don't do that anyway it really motivates me to stop buying CDs altogether.
Oh, wait a minute, RIAA convinced me to do that a couple years ago already. Oh well, nevermind. They've already pushed me away from buying music altogether.
Of *course* Microsoft runs the net. IIS is the dominant webserver. IE is the dominant web browser. You don't read your advertising, do you? I still remember reading the ads for IE's debut on Solaris. Remember their slogan? "Bringing the web to Unix." It's not often I fall out of my chair laughing, but that merited it. :)
Fundamentally you're saying we're not safe. That's true. In fact we never were. We were just naive. Well, most of us were, anyway.
Oh, I don't know, how about not letting knives and box cutters on the airlines? How about armed air marshalls? How about armed passengers? There are quite a few options that don't involve violating nearly 300 million Americans. How about denying ourselves the completely unjustifiable complacency we enjoy? 248 passengers couldn't be overpowered by 18 hijackers if those 248 were aware on a daily basis that they may be called upon to defend their lives. Some passengers apparently did defend themselves, and I have a deeper respect for them than I can ever convey. Attacks like this would be much harder to perpetrate if we were all prepared to take such action.
Surely you see the problem. Very strict guidelines? We have privacy violations that are outright illegal which happen anyway. For example, IRS agents can't look up celebrity tax info for fun, yet apparently they do anyway. You should start worrying whenever you say "If it's not abused, it shouldn't be a problem." Look around. It will be abused. Then we'll be told "Hey, we're tracking you anyway, and its for your own good, so just go about your business." Sound familiar?
And truth be told, its not even a big deal to NOT have it with you while driving. Not to be confused with not being a LICENSED DRIVER, which is a very major deal. Not carrying your license is a very minor fine (less than probably everyone reading this makes in an hour). I'm not advocating anyone do this, but having made the mistake and paid the fine myself, I can say no great big deal is made of it. It's quite a far cry from legislating that I must always carry ID.
It's never that simple. You're assuming the database and the people running it are absolutely secure and uncorruptible. I have zero doubt that for the right amount of money you could get a card with any name and fingerprint you want, with your picture on it. It's happened with driver's licenses. You're falling into the "government is perfect" fallacy. They're predominantly well meaning, but anything with so many employees will have some bad apples. I don't even need to speak to the security of the system itself. Its a given it'll be compromised.
Imagine the identity theft joys when some criminal is out there with your ID, and everyone knows its secure because its biometric, right?
That's just not at all where I want to go. I'd like to buy a loaf of bread without making an entry in somebody's database that SecurityGuy buys 1.34 loaves of bread per week, always brand X, 90% of the time at store Y, only 10% at store Z. I want to go in to a restaurant without having to tell them who I am. There's this dangerous public misperception that all these little invasions are innocuous. They aren't. The U.S. government should be one who well understands this since they're occasionally embarrased by publications of classified information which was never really disclosed, only inferred from a collection of unclassified or declassified data. Before you say this isn't really so bad, volunteer to live your life with no privacy. Those in the public eye who get to live their life in the metaphorical fishbowl don't seem to enjoy it.
[0] - US centric, I know. I write from my perspective.
[1] - One wanted my drivers license number, which I wouldn't give unless they're going to let me drive their delivery truck to my house.
Credit references, perhaps? This is one of those dubious arguments which infer that I'm required to do something because it is to my benefit. If so, why not just let me decide? "We'd like your SSN, otherwise we won't be able to report your credit, and the positive credit history we're sure you'll have with us won't benefit you in the future. Would you give your number?"
You're missing the fact that courts have determined, and some legislation has enacted, a real right to privacy which things like this erode. We have a right to have things about us NOT known. Sure, technology is pushing the limits on this, but it remains important to retain the right. To provide a coarse example, my infrared camera might allow me to determine intimate details of your life. Larry Ellisons out there might say we may as well abandon the right to privacy because you don't really have it anyway, but I'd much rather maintain the right and be able to do nasty legal things to people who infringe it.
The nerve of such an argument is appalling. "Forget privacy, we're tracking you anyway, so you may as well go along." What a testiment to the spinelessness of our society. Rather than demanding the tracking be reined in, we dumbly nod our heads and say "Uhh, ok...".
And yes, I consider anything which facilitates a police state to be harm. A true national ID will be used to tie you to EVERYTHING, just like other near national IDs are now. That level of tracking is simply not justifiable.
So you're asserting they *would* be useful in airline hijackings? The hijackers weren't U.S. citizens, so I'd assume they wouldn't have had US ID cards. Or do you intend to require an ID to board a plane. Kinda kills tourism. Come to the US, where you'll STAY until your ID card is ready! How long does it take to get a passport again?
Finding fault isn't necessarily a childish endeavor. It lets you identify the weak parts of a system and manage those weaknesses. For example, IIS will be installed at my orkplace over my cold, dead body.
Of course I don't support such a policy. I'm just stunned that 49% of my countrymen do. I'm sure that 49% and more have no idea which other country and when this "mark everyone of a certain kind" policy was used. The effect then was massively worse than 5k dead. Try something like 22 million before all was done.
The sad truth it 99% of Americans will answer a poll or support or oppose a bill without knowing anything whatsoever about the issue.
They won't laugh at all. They'll receive their instructions from the judge, that violating the ban on encryption without a backdoor is illegal regardless of the content, and that if they find you did create or use such encryption, they must find you guilty. You'll go to jail and you won't laugh either.