Right. And this new law just ensures that should a warrant be optained (and the definition of what is reasonable tends to vary over time, and from judge to judge since it is not formally defined anywhere), the data would still be available to mine. I don't really understand the over-reaction from everybody here. I suspect many ISPs already practice that kind of data retention on their own.
I am pretty sure that due to shear volume, they get a price break on any call they pay for (incoming or outgoing). Not to mantion that several of the company on the list don't probably pay for any calls since they ARE the phone company.
Now the likely true reason for them not doing that is that even with an automated dialer, the agents would waste a whole lot of time listening to voice mails, busy tones, or waiting on hold themselves while Little Johnny goes and fetch dad from the back yard, etc. With the customer calling and holding, there is basically no downtime whatsoever between "helping" customers.
In that case, hopefully they are smart enough to contract smart people for the project. One thing is for sure, they're not shy about throwing contract money around...
Maybe. Except you don't know what the RFID reader on the immigration officer's desk is gonna look like. It would imagine it will be shielded (he'll insert the passport into it for the reading). With a row of 50+ immigration desks at any airport, and thousands of passengers waiting on line in front of those desks, the noise ratio might be a little high otherwise. Just because RFID is capable of something, don't assume that's how they're going to use it that way. The US government is not completely dumb you know (regardless of its president).
Entering the US without passport (through our porous borders with Mexico and Canada, presumably is what you mean) is rather risky business - many die in the process. But yes, it's another weakness they're trying to address. Nobody would ever claim that any single thing will solve the bigger problem...
Components to fake out a RFID reader are about $20 at radio shack.
Maybe. But components to fake out a RFID reader while standing in front of the immigration officer at JFK airport might cost you a bit more. I venture to say you'll have to actually create a fake RFID chip (with valid, correctly encrypted data on it) and put it in the fake passport. The hardware to do that will be considerably more than $200, and you won't be able to find one of those at Kinko's either.
It is harder to duplicate/create a RFID than a 2D barcode which you can print with any laser printer. Not impossible of course. That's what I mean with cat and mouse game. Just like with paper currency - it's just one more watermark, one more embedded silver threat in the paper, one more micro-print. It will thwart the casual forger, but it's only a temporary setback for the hardcore ones. But it doesn't mean that they should just give up and not bother with any of these things.
Just like these tracking cookies from doubleclick.com (and other advertisers) do not contain personally identifiable data. But all it takes is for a personally indifiable transaction to occur WHILE you're holding that passport for that anonymous id to be associated with your name. Use your credit card, or give your name to someone, and now in some database someone knows at 123456789 is Kevin Conaway (if that's really your name) ans where you've been for the last 5 years.
I am not saying I believe in the conspiracy theories, but that's how the theory goes. The RF shield that prevents the RFID from being read while the passport is closed seem good enough for me. I don't open my passport anywhere other than the immigration counter at the airport, and it's legit for them to read the data anyway.
I don't think the handling speed is, or has ever been a concern. After all, they started taking pictures and finger prints of many passengers coming into the US. Hardly a speedy process.
The point of the new passports are twofold: raise the bar on forgers (it's always a cat and mouse game) and carry verifiable biometric information. Just to make you really are who you say you are. Of course, how is that going to prevent terrorism is beyond me. But I guess Osama Bin Ladden will have a harder time coming to the US for his yearly trip to Disney World.
In that regard it's no different than Shortcuts. Shortcuts that point to nothing are very common in Windows-world as well. It's irritating, no question about it, but I'd still rather not go without that feature.
I think you missed my point. If you read my response again, you will see that I specifically said that from an end-user perspective, creating a symlink will be the same. The key words here are end-user and creating. I am fully aware of how both work, and their differences. But end-users won't, as it should be.
PS: your example is pretty bad. Symlinks don't work across drives/filesystems (although, who knows, MS might find a way).
Yes, you could essentially re-implement Explorer in every app written by having them handle the *.lnk files the way Explorer does. It sort of is counterproductive. It is much cleaner to have that in the filesystem (or at least the MS APIs to open files) so that it is transparent to apps. Frankly the way the shortcut thing was implemented is a ugly hack. I figured what happened is that they wanted the symlink concept, but didn't want to (or couldn't) change the filesystem. Looks like they're finally (10 years later) decided to do it right.
As far as users are concerned, I suspect they won't know/see the difference. Creating symlinks will just work like creating shortcuts.
I know, you can't do it with every motherboard. I am just saying, flashing your BIOS does not neccessarily require DOS anymore. I haven't had to deal with a DOS-based flashing utility in a long while, but it will be a while before old hardware are decommissioned...
Actually, the GPL does allow you to charge a fee to package and ship the source code. There is no requirement that it has to be freely available from a FTP site.
The site says "email for price quote". Have you asked what the price is? I don't know what the magical number is. $8 would be reasonable, $1000 would not.
Award Bios has a windows-based fully-graphical utility to upgrade its BIOS. you don't boot into it or anything, it just runs in Windows. Not sure how they do it, but there is no DOS involved. The new BIOS is just there after you reboot.
he simple fact of the matter is that the United States could destroy most of the economies in the World simply by telling our citizens not to buy or sell things from/to them
Now, that's a rather (delusional) American thing to say. You have no idea just how fragile and dependent on other countries the US is. Foreign countries are basically funding the US government. Where do you think the US gets the money for its little projects (like the Iraq war, or the Katrina recovery)? It's not from the US taxpayers, not yet anyway. It's by borrowing, and borrowing big. Who are the lenders do you think? And what would happen if they stopped lending?
Oh, and then there is the foreign oil issue. If The World gets pissed at the US, and stops selling it to the US, well, your economy goes down the tube. The US is getting a little taste of that, and it's purely due to domestic disruptions.
Let's not forget all the huge US multinational companies that do business worldwide. There are just too many to list. The US economy would be in a serious pickle if they were all boycotted.
The truth of the matter is that a boycott of the EU by the US would hurt the US at least as much as it would hurt the EU. Which is really the point of the having the EU to begin with - it was created for the very purpose of having a bigger bargaining chip for dealing with big economic bullies (it is not yet able to deal with big military bullies though).
The UN does a lot of good? I doubt anybody living in Sudan would agree with you. I seriously dislike Dubya but he and his cronies are dead right about the UN
Hardly a perfect organization (which one is? The US government? HA!) but at this time it is the only organization considered neutral enough on this matter because it is funded internationally, it can claim to represent the world. The US represents itself.
You've earned the world's gratitude for inventing, and indeed funding it in the early days. Gratitude is what you are entitled to (not to mantion the virtual "landgrab" on IPs and domain names, not so much something you were entitled to, but something you took). But now, by your own design, the internet has become critical infrastructure for all countries. That this means it can't be in the hands of any one country, however likeable that country is. You would say the same thing if let's say the UK had invented it, so recognize it's the right thing to do. Yes, it's hard to let go of your baby, but he's grown up now!
That may end up being what happens IF the US just refuses to do the right thing, but it doesn't mean they can't try to get the US to do the right thing...
I agree with you that there is a little bit more to it than "hey, I am big and I have a lot of people" to the (hypothetical) military conflict, especially since third parties like the US might intervene and complicate things for China (the US has committed in the past to defend Taiwan although I personally have my doubts wether this country would have the will-power politically to come true on that). But I have little doubt, even with a technological advantage on the side of Taiwan that China would win. China may pay a great cost (in lives and financially) for the win, but that's the thing: they are so big, and frankly not all that concerned with political repercussions (domestically certainly, but even foreign) that they could bear that cost. Maybe it is all a bluff, but I certainly wouldn't risk calling it.
Yes, it is the government that lost a civil war. I am not saying I agree with them, just stating Taiwan's position from a historical perspective and the differences between "ROC" and "PRC". Of course, no Taiwanese at this point want to govern China. They just want to go on their own merry way (which they already have, there is just a little technicality to overcome)
Even if they don't use their nukes, a war certainly WOULD start, and Taiwan would get crushed like the little bug that it is. Not picking up a fight you have not a single chance of winning and nothing to gain from(*) is not being a "coward", it's being "sane". Only those with no skin on the line (for example, you) might call this "cowardice". The only cowards in this mess are the US (and other countries) for not recognizing what they know to be a fact: Taiwan is not part of China.
(*) Taiwan is independant, democratic and thriving. They just lack the "official" recognition (every country in the world - even China - trades with them and otherwise deals with them). Yes, most Taiwanese will tell you it would be nice on the principle, but that's about it. This is purely a political distinction that has ZERO effect on the citizen's life.
The term "Province" is really how the mainland (PRC) wants Taiwan's refered as. With or without the "Renegate" qualifier. But I does seem they have turned a deaf ear to "ROC" eventhough I am sure it irks them a great deal.
Actually, it's more than China won't let it, and the other countries are too scared of pissing off China so they don't (officially) support Taiwan. Of course, the US supports Taiwan in plenty of other ways (including militarily) but just won't cross that line because it would probably cause WWIII.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. And this new law just ensures that should a warrant be optained (and the definition of what is reasonable tends to vary over time, and from judge to judge since it is not formally defined anywhere), the data would still be available to mine. I don't really understand the over-reaction from everybody here. I suspect many ISPs already practice that kind of data retention on their own.
I am pretty sure that due to shear volume, they get a price break on any call they pay for (incoming or outgoing). Not to mantion that several of the company on the list don't probably pay for any calls since they ARE the phone company.
Now the likely true reason for them not doing that is that even with an automated dialer, the agents would waste a whole lot of time listening to voice mails, busy tones, or waiting on hold themselves while Little Johnny goes and fetch dad from the back yard, etc. With the customer calling and holding, there is basically no downtime whatsoever between "helping" customers.
So instead they pay a few cents for you to hold on their 800 lines?
In that case, hopefully they are smart enough to contract smart people for the project. One thing is for sure, they're not shy about throwing contract money around...
I would imagine that if the RFID in the passport fails to work, you may be subjected to more scrutiny than you would have otherwise.
Maybe. Except you don't know what the RFID reader on the immigration officer's desk is gonna look like. It would imagine it will be shielded (he'll insert the passport into it for the reading). With a row of 50+ immigration desks at any airport, and thousands of passengers waiting on line in front of those desks, the noise ratio might be a little high otherwise. Just because RFID is capable of something, don't assume that's how they're going to use it that way. The US government is not completely dumb you know (regardless of its president).
Entering the US without passport (through our porous borders with Mexico and Canada, presumably is what you mean) is rather risky business - many die in the process. But yes, it's another weakness they're trying to address. Nobody would ever claim that any single thing will solve the bigger problem...
Components to fake out a RFID reader are about $20 at radio shack.
Maybe. But components to fake out a RFID reader while standing in front of the immigration officer at JFK airport might cost you a bit more. I venture to say you'll have to actually create a fake RFID chip (with valid, correctly encrypted data on it) and put it in the fake passport. The hardware to do that will be considerably more than $200, and you won't be able to find one of those at Kinko's either.
It is harder to duplicate/create a RFID than a 2D barcode which you can print with any laser printer. Not impossible of course. That's what I mean with cat and mouse game. Just like with paper currency - it's just one more watermark, one more embedded silver threat in the paper, one more micro-print. It will thwart the casual forger, but it's only a temporary setback for the hardcore ones. But it doesn't mean that they should just give up and not bother with any of these things.
Just like these tracking cookies from doubleclick.com (and other advertisers) do not contain personally identifiable data. But all it takes is for a personally indifiable transaction to occur WHILE you're holding that passport for that anonymous id to be associated with your name. Use your credit card, or give your name to someone, and now in some database someone knows at 123456789 is Kevin Conaway (if that's really your name) ans where you've been for the last 5 years.
I am not saying I believe in the conspiracy theories, but that's how the theory goes. The RF shield that prevents the RFID from being read while the passport is closed seem good enough for me. I don't open my passport anywhere other than the immigration counter at the airport, and it's legit for them to read the data anyway.
I don't think the handling speed is, or has ever been a concern. After all, they started taking pictures and finger prints of many passengers coming into the US. Hardly a speedy process.
The point of the new passports are twofold: raise the bar on forgers (it's always a cat and mouse game) and carry verifiable biometric information. Just to make you really are who you say you are. Of course, how is that going to prevent terrorism is beyond me. But I guess Osama Bin Ladden will have a harder time coming to the US for his yearly trip to Disney World.
I take that PS back. It's hardlinks that can't cross physical devices. My bad.
In that regard it's no different than Shortcuts. Shortcuts that point to nothing are very common in Windows-world as well. It's irritating, no question about it, but I'd still rather not go without that feature.
I think you missed my point. If you read my response again, you will see that I specifically said that from an end-user perspective, creating a symlink will be the same. The key words here are end-user and creating. I am fully aware of how both work, and their differences. But end-users won't, as it should be.
PS: your example is pretty bad. Symlinks don't work across drives/filesystems (although, who knows, MS might find a way).
Yes, you could essentially re-implement Explorer in every app written by having them handle the *.lnk files the way Explorer does. It sort of is counterproductive. It is much cleaner to have that in the filesystem (or at least the MS APIs to open files) so that it is transparent to apps. Frankly the way the shortcut thing was implemented is a ugly hack. I figured what happened is that they wanted the symlink concept, but didn't want to (or couldn't) change the filesystem. Looks like they're finally (10 years later) decided to do it right.
As far as users are concerned, I suspect they won't know/see the difference. Creating symlinks will just work like creating shortcuts.
I know, you can't do it with every motherboard. I am just saying, flashing your BIOS does not neccessarily require DOS anymore. I haven't had to deal with a DOS-based flashing utility in a long while, but it will be a while before old hardware are decommissioned...
Actually, the GPL does allow you to charge a fee to package and ship the source code. There is no requirement that it has to be freely available from a FTP site.
The site says "email for price quote". Have you asked what the price is? I don't know what the magical number is. $8 would be reasonable, $1000 would not.
Award Bios has a windows-based fully-graphical utility to upgrade its BIOS. you don't boot into it or anything, it just runs in Windows. Not sure how they do it, but there is no DOS involved. The new BIOS is just there after you reboot.
he simple fact of the matter is that the United States could destroy most of the economies in the World simply by telling our citizens not to buy or sell things from/to them
Now, that's a rather (delusional) American thing to say. You have no idea just how fragile and dependent on other countries the US is. Foreign countries are basically funding the US government. Where do you think the US gets the money for its little projects (like the Iraq war, or the Katrina recovery)? It's not from the US taxpayers, not yet anyway. It's by borrowing, and borrowing big. Who are the lenders do you think? And what would happen if they stopped lending?
Oh, and then there is the foreign oil issue. If The World gets pissed at the US, and stops selling it to the US, well, your economy goes down the tube. The US is getting a little taste of that, and it's purely due to domestic disruptions.
Let's not forget all the huge US multinational companies that do business worldwide. There are just too many to list. The US economy would be in a serious pickle if they were all boycotted.
The truth of the matter is that a boycott of the EU by the US would hurt the US at least as much as it would hurt the EU. Which is really the point of the having the EU to begin with - it was created for the very purpose of having a bigger bargaining chip for dealing with big economic bullies (it is not yet able to deal with big military bullies though).
The UN does a lot of good? I doubt anybody living in Sudan would agree with you. I seriously dislike Dubya but he and his cronies are dead right about the UN
Hardly a perfect organization (which one is? The US government? HA!) but at this time it is the only organization considered neutral enough on this matter because it is funded internationally, it can claim to represent the world. The US represents itself.
Dear USA,
You've earned the world's gratitude for inventing, and indeed funding it in the early days. Gratitude is what you are entitled to (not to mantion the virtual "landgrab" on IPs and domain names, not so much something you were entitled to, but something you took). But now, by your own design, the internet has become critical infrastructure for all countries. That this means it can't be in the hands of any one country, however likeable that country is. You would say the same thing if let's say the UK had invented it, so recognize it's the right thing to do. Yes, it's hard to let go of your baby, but he's grown up now!
Sincerely (and gratefully),
The World.
That may end up being what happens IF the US just refuses to do the right thing, but it doesn't mean they can't try to get the US to do the right thing...
I agree with you that there is a little bit more to it than "hey, I am big and I have a lot of people" to the (hypothetical) military conflict, especially since third parties like the US might intervene and complicate things for China (the US has committed in the past to defend Taiwan although I personally have my doubts wether this country would have the will-power politically to come true on that). But I have little doubt, even with a technological advantage on the side of Taiwan that China would win. China may pay a great cost (in lives and financially) for the win, but that's the thing: they are so big, and frankly not all that concerned with political repercussions (domestically certainly, but even foreign) that they could bear that cost. Maybe it is all a bluff, but I certainly wouldn't risk calling it.
Yes, it is the government that lost a civil war. I am not saying I agree with them, just stating Taiwan's position from a historical perspective and the differences between "ROC" and "PRC". Of course, no Taiwanese at this point want to govern China. They just want to go on their own merry way (which they already have, there is just a little technicality to overcome)
Even if they don't use their nukes, a war certainly WOULD start, and Taiwan would get crushed like the little bug that it is. Not picking up a fight you have not a single chance of winning and nothing to gain from(*) is not being a "coward", it's being "sane". Only those with no skin on the line (for example, you) might call this "cowardice". The only cowards in this mess are the US (and other countries) for not recognizing what they know to be a fact: Taiwan is not part of China.
(*) Taiwan is independant, democratic and thriving. They just lack the "official" recognition (every country in the world - even China - trades with them and otherwise deals with them). Yes, most Taiwanese will tell you it would be nice on the principle, but that's about it. This is purely a political distinction that has ZERO effect on the citizen's life.
The term "Province" is really how the mainland (PRC) wants Taiwan's refered as. With or without the "Renegate" qualifier. But I does seem they have turned a deaf ear to "ROC" eventhough I am sure it irks them a great deal.
Actually, it's more than China won't let it, and the other countries are too scared of pissing off China so they don't (officially) support Taiwan. Of course, the US supports Taiwan in plenty of other ways (including militarily) but just won't cross that line because it would probably cause WWIII.
Minor distinction I feel is important to make.