You're missing the part of the judicial order. a judge decided that you should be forced to give it up. that's all that matters. no law or right should ever be absolute without exception always and forever. if you don't trust your judge, appoint someone else to make exceptions. either way, exceptions must always be possible in any reasonable system.
Think safe-deposit box. They are given authority to force the bank to open it. Or to force you to open it. Or to imprison both you and the bank manager.
I said reference object. A microchip is not a reference object. It is a sample object. I said reference object. Imagine, a microchip, ten feet large, made of common materials (steel), that "works" slowly and obviously. Such that anyone who looks at it can see that it must do something. With a little work (i.e. a month of study) they can make it work. Then, someone who knows about metals in general, can say that steel is slow but copper would be faster, and gold would be smaller.
What you write down onto a piece of paper ain't covered. You created the record. That record is evidence. I don't care if it's in english, ascii, or cipher. judicial order is for evidence, behind any kind of key.
That "you" are never forced to "admit" anything, has no bearing on someone collecting evidence, be it a note on your desk, or a note in your phone. If you record it, it's subject to a judicial order.
I believe the line is something to the effect of: "since when does right and wrong come down to a book of rules".
I think we're all for encryption, secrecy, and obstruction of all kinds most of the time. I think we're also expecting that when it makes sense, those walls need to be dropped.
We have this everywhere. My home is protected from police entry, until there's reason to make an exception.
And so, we've devised this whole way of making official exceptions -- where a judge decides that it's acceptable.
So encryption really ought to be the very same thing. It's secure, until a judge says to open the door.
As for places and governments that would abuse such power, the problem isn't the abuse, the problem is the government. Fix that.
Oh, heavily abbreviated (I'm Canadian, by the way):
if the mouth points down, it's a bottom-feeder, if it points up, it's a surface feeder, if it points straight, it's carnivorous. if it has a dorsal fin, if it has thin fins, if it has big flippers, denotes its relative speed. vertical tail fin, it lives in reeds, horizontal tail fin, it doesn't. scales vs no-scales, eyes on the sides vs the on the top, big eyes vs small eyes. belly-colour vs dorsal colour.
so really basic observations can give you a pretty good idea of whether or not it can attack, defend, move through tall plants or narrow coral, is often seen from underneath or is often seen from above, lives in darkness deep waters or shallow, moves fast or slow. Put it all together, and you've can come pretty close to exactly what it is and where it lives.
And if you're in Mr. Mawson's class, there was a quiz ten minutes after the lesson, just to prove that you weren't really paying any attention, so everyone failed every time, and knew exactly what they needed to study in time for the test next week.
we switched to modern media not because it lasts longer. It's more reliable because it's more easily copied/produced. You never had the option to use stone tablets for current knowledge -- there's too much knowledge now.
I grew up with my mother suggesting something very interesting: in 1925, if archeologists had dug up a microchip, would they have known what it was? Or just thought it was junk, or a toy, and moved on?
If we want to "document" knowledge, in an ever-lasting way, it's the same game as it's always been: you can't do it with language at all. Sorry. Language doesn't survive. Cave wall drawings are meaningless. Hieroglyphics are useless without culture. Dialects, subtleties, and context are required to interpret language. "bread crumbs" means nothing without a house made of gingerbread.
So how do we "document" knowledge? That's easy: reference objects. For example, the knowledge of how to build a telescope is best "documented" by building a telescope specifically for future generations to study -- maybe bigger, maybe with more obvious design decisions, maybe with more understandable materials, maybe with easily disassembling parts.
Reference builds. I'll say it now. Distant generations learn from objects, not from documentation. We dig up old pottery, and understand what sorts of tools were used. We don't dig up blueprints for pots. Take a reference telescope, and study it for a week. You'll learn everything you need to know about how it works, how it's used, what it can do.
Objects.
Academics are, well, merely academic. We've lost the concept of learning from observation. Remember grade-9 science's how-to-read-a-fish? Most of my friends can't read their own dog.
It's not about understanding the risks. It's about considering the dangers to be significant. I reuse passwords all over the place, and most of my passwords are very simple. And I understand that because of my behaviour, it'd be very easy to hack into my slashdot account. There's no paradox there. I don't consider my slashdot account to be vital. If someone wants to hack into my slashdot account, I could care less. I'll get another slashdot account. It was free the first time. It'll be free the second time.
There are very very few passwords that actually protect something special. Even with my bank account, I'm not responsible for losses due to theft. Everything's insured by everybody along the chain, and most things are completely reversible.
Even my business passwords, that protect all of my clients' data, and support my livlihood, are restricted from the office, and the data is backed up in eight ways.
Identity theft would probably be the biggest threat to most morons these days. For me, it'd be a ten-minute inconvenience. It would mean visiting the bank, and saying: "I think someone's stolen my identity". Lori would say: "That sucks, let's freeze the old accounts and create some new accounts for you."
So what passwords protect something vital in your life?
you can't subscribe to imdb2.com. you can't have a membership of any kind. There's no one to pay. So that means it can legally post ages and birthdates. done.
I'm clean. I'm safe. I'm secure. From every danger, always.
I've got a giant tvision, with infinite entertainment. I've got access to all the world's knowledge and communication with anyone on the planet within seconds from my pocket.
I've got food, year-round, in a clean kitchen, at the touch of a few buttons -- be it the stove, the oven, or the microwave, I can cook food in minutes.
Instead of spending my like canning to preserve food, I have winter-in-one-box-and-the-arctic-in-another.
I've got laundry machines that can wash every piece of cloth in the entire house in one day. The only reason I don't use it every day is because I'd need to fold it all.
I've got porn, fast-food, and a couch actually called a lazy-boy.
I've got infinite music for pennies. Infinite movies for a few dollars. Infinite tvision for a few dollars more.
I've got an inexpensive sports car.
I've got farm-fresh food minutes away.
I've got friends and family and neighbours readily available for fun times, or to help me when I need help.
I've got as few or as many pets and children as I'd like. Which reminds me, I've got free healthcare and free education too.
You've got problems? Really, the laundry folding isn't that bad.
I'm 36. My parents are 65. My grandparents are 94. No one in my family has ever considered sugar to be specifically healthy. No one considered a high-sugar diet to be a good idea either. Quite frankly, no one considered an unbalanced diet of nothing but carrots and kale to be healthy either.
If you need a scientist to tell you how to eat, (for a normal lifestyle, not olympic athletes, etc) then you're just an idiot. Thousands of years before nutrition scientists, eating random berries and random meats and random waters. People learned.
But that's exactly what makes it an art. It's about choosing which 80%, which 19.999%, and which 0.001%. That's the expression.
This is slashdot. Every week we read another "high school class sends camera into space for under $100, gets photos as good as nasa" article. But that high school class got 100 random photos, once. Nasa gets the photo they wanted, of the object they wanted.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the part of the judicial order. a judge decided that you should be forced to give it up. that's all that matters. no law or right should ever be absolute without exception always and forever. if you don't trust your judge, appoint someone else to make exceptions. either way, exceptions must always be possible in any reasonable system.
Think safe-deposit box. They are given authority to force the bank to open it. Or to force you to open it. Or to imprison both you and the bank manager.
I said reference object. A microchip is not a reference object. It is a sample object. I said reference object. Imagine, a microchip, ten feet large, made of common materials (steel), that "works" slowly and obviously. Such that anyone who looks at it can see that it must do something. With a little work (i.e. a month of study) they can make it work. Then, someone who knows about metals in general, can say that steel is slow but copper would be faster, and gold would be smaller.
Reference objects.
I didn't say backdoor. You said backdoor. I said judicial order means you open the door for them.
I didn't say backdoor. You said backdoor. Try again. I said judicial order -- hand over the key.
What you write down onto a piece of paper ain't covered. You created the record. That record is evidence. I don't care if it's in english, ascii, or cipher. judicial order is for evidence, behind any kind of key.
I said nothing of a back door. I said a judicial order to grant access.
standard for most domestic animals -- ears, tail, eyes, spine. up vs down. flexed vs relaxed. alone or in combination.
mammals are particularly easy, since you ought to be able to read emotions that match your own.
"should". bullshit. that's exactly what a judicial order is for.
That "you" are never forced to "admit" anything, has no bearing on someone collecting evidence, be it a note on your desk, or a note in your phone. If you record it, it's subject to a judicial order.
No, it requires a judicial order to be respected. The lock on my front door needn't have a bypass. You can just kick in the entire door.
That's what judges are for. If you don't trust your judges, then that's what needs the fixing.
I believe the line is something to the effect of: "since when does right and wrong come down to a book of rules".
I think we're all for encryption, secrecy, and obstruction of all kinds most of the time. I think we're also expecting that when it makes sense, those walls need to be dropped.
We have this everywhere. My home is protected from police entry, until there's reason to make an exception.
And so, we've devised this whole way of making official exceptions -- where a judge decides that it's acceptable.
So encryption really ought to be the very same thing. It's secure, until a judge says to open the door.
As for places and governments that would abuse such power, the problem isn't the abuse, the problem is the government. Fix that.
Oh, heavily abbreviated (I'm Canadian, by the way):
if the mouth points down, it's a bottom-feeder, if it points up, it's a surface feeder, if it points straight, it's carnivorous.
if it has a dorsal fin, if it has thin fins, if it has big flippers, denotes its relative speed.
vertical tail fin, it lives in reeds, horizontal tail fin, it doesn't.
scales vs no-scales, eyes on the sides vs the on the top, big eyes vs small eyes.
belly-colour vs dorsal colour.
so really basic observations can give you a pretty good idea of whether or not it can attack, defend, move through tall plants or narrow coral, is often seen from underneath or is often seen from above, lives in darkness deep waters or shallow, moves fast or slow. Put it all together, and you've can come pretty close to exactly what it is and where it lives.
And if you're in Mr. Mawson's class, there was a quiz ten minutes after the lesson, just to prove that you weren't really paying any attention, so everyone failed every time, and knew exactly what they needed to study in time for the test next week.
we switched to modern media not because it lasts longer. It's more reliable because it's more easily copied/produced. You never had the option to use stone tablets for current knowledge -- there's too much knowledge now.
I grew up with my mother suggesting something very interesting: in 1925, if archeologists had dug up a microchip, would they have known what it was? Or just thought it was junk, or a toy, and moved on?
If we want to "document" knowledge, in an ever-lasting way, it's the same game as it's always been: you can't do it with language at all. Sorry. Language doesn't survive. Cave wall drawings are meaningless. Hieroglyphics are useless without culture. Dialects, subtleties, and context are required to interpret language. "bread crumbs" means nothing without a house made of gingerbread.
So how do we "document" knowledge? That's easy: reference objects. For example, the knowledge of how to build a telescope is best "documented" by building a telescope specifically for future generations to study -- maybe bigger, maybe with more obvious design decisions, maybe with more understandable materials, maybe with easily disassembling parts.
Reference builds. I'll say it now. Distant generations learn from objects, not from documentation. We dig up old pottery, and understand what sorts of tools were used. We don't dig up blueprints for pots. Take a reference telescope, and study it for a week. You'll learn everything you need to know about how it works, how it's used, what it can do.
Objects.
Academics are, well, merely academic. We've lost the concept of learning from observation. Remember grade-9 science's how-to-read-a-fish? Most of my friends can't read their own dog.
I'm sure they miss more minutes than they hit. I'm sure they mean to average one per minute -- 1'440 per day. That's very different.
It's not about understanding the risks. It's about considering the dangers to be significant. I reuse passwords all over the place, and most of my passwords are very simple. And I understand that because of my behaviour, it'd be very easy to hack into my slashdot account. There's no paradox there. I don't consider my slashdot account to be vital. If someone wants to hack into my slashdot account, I could care less. I'll get another slashdot account. It was free the first time. It'll be free the second time.
There are very very few passwords that actually protect something special. Even with my bank account, I'm not responsible for losses due to theft. Everything's insured by everybody along the chain, and most things are completely reversible.
Even my business passwords, that protect all of my clients' data, and support my livlihood, are restricted from the office, and the data is backed up in eight ways.
Identity theft would probably be the biggest threat to most morons these days. For me, it'd be a ten-minute inconvenience. It would mean visiting the bank, and saying: "I think someone's stolen my identity". Lori would say: "That sucks, let's freeze the old accounts and create some new accounts for you."
So what passwords protect something vital in your life?
Apple just hired another lawyer. I can't imagine this makes it out the door.
you can't subscribe to imdb2.com. you can't have a membership of any kind. There's no one to pay. So that means it can legally post ages and birthdates. done.
The same way you tell if you have a slowly-leaking toilet in your home: you stop using everything and look at the meter..
Let's see. . .
I'm dry. I'm warm. I'm cool. Year-round.
I'm clean. I'm safe. I'm secure. From every danger, always.
I've got a giant tvision, with infinite entertainment. I've got access to all the world's knowledge and communication with anyone on the planet within seconds from my pocket.
I've got food, year-round, in a clean kitchen, at the touch of a few buttons -- be it the stove, the oven, or the microwave, I can cook food in minutes.
Instead of spending my like canning to preserve food, I have winter-in-one-box-and-the-arctic-in-another.
I've got laundry machines that can wash every piece of cloth in the entire house in one day. The only reason I don't use it every day is because I'd need to fold it all.
I've got porn, fast-food, and a couch actually called a lazy-boy.
I've got infinite music for pennies. Infinite movies for a few dollars. Infinite tvision for a few dollars more.
I've got an inexpensive sports car.
I've got farm-fresh food minutes away.
I've got friends and family and neighbours readily available for fun times, or to help me when I need help.
I've got as few or as many pets and children as I'd like. Which reminds me, I've got free healthcare and free education too.
You've got problems? Really, the laundry folding isn't that bad.
I'm 36. My parents are 65. My grandparents are 94. No one in my family has ever considered sugar to be specifically healthy. No one considered a high-sugar diet to be a good idea either. Quite frankly, no one considered an unbalanced diet of nothing but carrots and kale to be healthy either.
If you need a scientist to tell you how to eat, (for a normal lifestyle, not olympic athletes, etc) then you're just an idiot. Thousands of years before nutrition scientists, eating random berries and random meats and random waters. People learned.
But that's exactly what makes it an art. It's about choosing which 80%, which 19.999%, and which 0.001%. That's the expression.
This is slashdot. Every week we read another "high school class sends camera into space for under $100, gets photos as good as nasa" article. But that high school class got 100 random photos, once. Nasa gets the photo they wanted, of the object they wanted.
It's the very selection that's the art.
Oh, certainly. But that's for the documentary on how-it's-made, not for the consumer listening to it.
My point is that in those cases, it's the "telling" that's art, not the "hearing". When an algorithm does the telling, there's no art left.
I really don't care about what a computer has to say about a game. For that reason, I'm not interested in hearing it.