The first amendment protects an intrinsic attribute of being a person, while the second regulates a very external piece of optional property that arguably exists only to destroy.
You are mistaken. In the constitutional era private ownership was key to having a "well-regulated" militia. "Well-regulated" in that era was commonly used to describe something as effectively functioning, in the militia context properly equipped and trained. This usage is less common today, the resulting confusion a matter how phraseology and fashion changes over the centuries.
Militia often carried their personal weapons, and those weapons were at times technologically superior to the military issued weapons. For example the Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles of hunters as opposed to the military issued muskets. The establishment of the right to private ownership helped ensure properly equipped militias. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The *people* have the right so that the militia will be equipped and trained (private ownership, hunting, private target shooting, etc).
Keep in mind that then, and *today*, the militia included all able bodied male citizens of military age. Today, the federal militia has both active and inactive components, the active the national guard and the inactive all abled bodied males age 18-45. The latter do *not* have to sign up, do *not* have to show up anywhere,... yet they are legally part of the inactive federal militia. Well, they don't have to show up until drafted, which is legally a transfer from inactive militia to the regular reserves.
Not really. The 2nd Amendment specifically refers to "a well-regulated militia".
In constitutional days well-regulated meant equipped and trained to an effective level, it did *not* mean having all your regulatory paperwork and permissions in order.
Also to this day by federal law the federal militia includes all able bodied male citizens age 18-45. There is no enlistment, no signup, no requirement to show up anywhere and train, you are in automatically. This is the "inactive" component component of the militia, the national guard is the "active" component of the militia. The national guard is not the entire militia. Armed citizens with no prior armed forces affiliation are also part of the federal militia.
Almost no other parts of the Constitution and Amendments include a rationale, so the only reasonable interpretation is that the rationale was included for a specific reason. It's no different than advocating for patent reform because one feels that the current system is not meeting the purpose explicitly given in the Constitution.
Armed citizens with no prior armed forces affiliation are also part of the federal militia. Hence the 2nd amendment being an individual right that supports the militia. And as others have pointed out the 2nd amendment has also been ruled an individual right with respect to self defense. Which also has a historical tie to the militia. In colonial/constitutional days the militia was not just used for military conflict, it could also be used to suppress riots, defend against and/or arrest bandits, etc.
Yuri gets a pass. He was part of that rare component of the Soviet system that accomplished something good and worthwhile, space exploration and research.
Shadowy villains and conspiracy stories? People have already been charged and have PLEADED GUILTY.
You're right I'm sure we're all imagining it
Yes, because a plea bargain could never indicate a victim of coercion, only a guilty person ever takes a plea. Its never about the cost and uncertainty of a trial; the uncertainty of the entire government against what you can afford in terms of legal representation and investigation/discovery.
What is so unprovable? Either FaceBook gave the Russians access to the US data or they did not. FaceBook / Russia collusion seems evident given the summary;-)
So FaceBook collaborated with the Russians. From the summary:
"Aleksander Kogan, a Russian data scientist who gave lectures at St. Petersburg State University, gathered Facebook data from millions of Americans." ;-)
We're talking about an escrowed key service installed by a manufacturer as a backdoor, keep up. How would you know it was compromised?
Actually that is precisely NOT what we are talking about. Read start of thread, it specifically says this does not require a backdoor, merely one-time archiving of your "passcode" when it is initially set or changed. Manufacturer backdoor is a long debunked assumption.
Creating a simple Ltd Company in Ireland and hiring an Irish proxy company to be its address, contact, mail recipient, etc establishes an EU presence. Domain registration proceeds. Domain availability uninterrupted by Brexit. Rules is rules, works both ways.
In the real world, a weak key is identical to an easily stolen key. They are the same, even if they are technically different.
Not really. With a weak key the encryption may be defeated by anyone with sufficient computational power. That is something quite different than a stolen key, the computational power being much more attainable.
You are offering a "weaken the encryption" argument in a "company must archive decryption keys" discussion. These are two different things. The latter does not require the former.
Unless the hardware with the VM running on it has a logger built in, what's to stop people from just running an encrypted VM?
Nothing. Just like there is nothing to prevent you from encrypting your data independently of OS supplied and automatic disk encryption/decryption, independently of your cloud storage provider's automatic encryption. So yes, you can still beat the feds, but that's a different argument than "its impossible" or "it will kill open source", a better argument to pursue.
For day-to-day development and debugging the kernel developer can use a virtual machine.
For external testing kernel developers could register with Red Hat, Canonical, etc and submits their binaries for signing. The signing process could limit the key's use to the developer's and external tester's registered hardware. This sort of stuff already exists, Apple's Ad Hoc distribution for iOS works in this fashion. Apple signs the developer's binary via a web based process and now the developer and their external testers can run it.
What would stop it, your hardware vendor requiring a properly signed kernel. Doesn't Red Hat and Canonical already offer signed kernels to support "secure boot"? As I said, its a problem for open source, not necessarily Linux users.
Would the government care if there is a black market for hardware not implementing some sort of "secure boot", doubtful. Few criminals will have them and mere possession of them can itself be a criminal offense by which they can take you off the streets.
Again, not a desirable path to head down, just arguing against the notion that Linux use would somehow be impeded.
What if you're running an OS where Apple/M$/Google/etc is not privy to your LUKS passphrase? Will this ban any OS that doesn't require a "cloud" login?
What I referred to is not a cloud login. Its a one-time archiving of your "passcode" when it is initially set or changed. Day-to-day passcode use would remain offline.
Is this a problem for open source, yes, but that is something separate from technical feasibility. Is this a problem for Linux users, possibly not for many. Red Hat, Canonical, etc could archive things just like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.
Again, none of this is desirable. I'm just arguing against the notion of "impossible". If you don't accept the unpleasant facts how can you effectively address the problem? Lets not misrepresent things and be as ill-informed as the government often is.
You misunderstand. Its not necessarily about being hackable or backdoored. There is no need to remove the current level of encryption and digital signatures and other technical security features, nor is it necessary to prevent further advances in these areas. All that government would need to do is require Apple/Google/Microsoft/etc to archive your passcode, and give up your passcode when presented with a warrant. Yes, that is not desirable. However it is not "banning unhackable communication".
scientific-misconduct investigations by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in America are no more frequent than 20 years ago
Does the Office of Research Integrity have access to more resources than they did 20 years ago? If the number of misconduct investigations is limited by their capacity to investigate then "no more frequent" is meaningless. If ORI can expand their capacity as needed, as more questionable research is reported, then "no more frequent" may be meaningful.
US Federal Law defines the Federal Militia as all able bodied males age 18-45 *plus* the National Guard and Naval Militia. The former are an inactive component of the militia that have no requirement to meet, train, etc... yet they are legally part of the militia. However the federal government can activate them and order them to report to active forces for service. Many states have similar things in their state constitution.
Has anybody asked him why the pacman generation didn't wander around buildings with corridors while eating M&Ms? The asteroids generation? Did they shoot at rocks? Donkey Kong...?
The real question is why didn't the pacman/asteroids/donkeykong generation wander around the school shooting people? Something has changed and it wasn't the guns. That generation had the AR-15 too. Oh excuse me, using the Mini-14 as they saw the A-Team doing on TV?
" the bullied nerd types used to know better and react in a more civilized manner."
Yeah they killed themselves. but I suppose you think that's "more civilized".
Let's pretend your idiotic statement were true, compared to mass murder it is a vast improvement.
But your statement is BS and now back to reality. There were both fewer suicide and fewer murders. They dealt with it, the grew up, they moved beyond it, they realized a-holes were a-holes and learned not to give a sh*t and went on to rule the world we know today.
You seem to be off on a tangent, arguing against a point I did not make. Yes firearms can be dangerous. That's why background checks, training, keeping them locked up are all good ideas. Things I too personally practice. However the points I am making is that (1) mental health needs to be part of the background check process and (2) "assault weapons" are functionally equivalent to semiautomatics that are not on anyone's ban list, put a low capacity hunting magazine into an AR and how is it any more dangerous than regular rifles? I.e. the focus on ARs is a focus on a military *look*. I.e. a tactic to confuse and manipulate the ill-informed.
Slashdot Mirror
The first amendment protects an intrinsic attribute of being a person, while the second regulates a very external piece of optional property that arguably exists only to destroy.
You are mistaken. In the constitutional era private ownership was key to having a "well-regulated" militia. "Well-regulated" in that era was commonly used to describe something as effectively functioning, in the militia context properly equipped and trained. This usage is less common today, the resulting confusion a matter how phraseology and fashion changes over the centuries.
... yet they are legally part of the inactive federal militia. Well, they don't have to show up until drafted, which is legally a transfer from inactive militia to the regular reserves.
Militia often carried their personal weapons, and those weapons were at times technologically superior to the military issued weapons. For example the Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles of hunters as opposed to the military issued muskets. The establishment of the right to private ownership helped ensure properly equipped militias. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The *people* have the right so that the militia will be equipped and trained (private ownership, hunting, private target shooting, etc).
Keep in mind that then, and *today*, the militia included all able bodied male citizens of military age. Today, the federal militia has both active and inactive components, the active the national guard and the inactive all abled bodied males age 18-45. The latter do *not* have to sign up, do *not* have to show up anywhere,
Not really. The 2nd Amendment specifically refers to "a well-regulated militia".
In constitutional days well-regulated meant equipped and trained to an effective level, it did *not* mean having all your regulatory paperwork and permissions in order.
Also to this day by federal law the federal militia includes all able bodied male citizens age 18-45. There is no enlistment, no signup, no requirement to show up anywhere and train, you are in automatically. This is the "inactive" component component of the militia, the national guard is the "active" component of the militia. The national guard is not the entire militia. Armed citizens with no prior armed forces affiliation are also part of the federal militia.
Almost no other parts of the Constitution and Amendments include a rationale, so the only reasonable interpretation is that the rationale was included for a specific reason. It's no different than advocating for patent reform because one feels that the current system is not meeting the purpose explicitly given in the Constitution.
Armed citizens with no prior armed forces affiliation are also part of the federal militia. Hence the 2nd amendment being an individual right that supports the militia. And as others have pointed out the 2nd amendment has also been ruled an individual right with respect to self defense. Which also has a historical tie to the militia. In colonial/constitutional days the militia was not just used for military conflict, it could also be used to suppress riots, defend against and/or arrest bandits, etc.
I've never created a Facebook account but Facebook created one for me and leaked out all my personal info to the World?
That's what you get for using gmail, Google had all that data and sold it to Facebook so they could create your account. ;-)
Will this year's Yuri's Night not be politically correct? as in https://www.flickr.com/photos/...
Yuri gets a pass. He was part of that rare component of the Soviet system that accomplished something good and worthwhile, space exploration and research.
Shadowy villains and conspiracy stories? People have already been charged and have PLEADED GUILTY.
You're right I'm sure we're all imagining it
Yes, because a plea bargain could never indicate a victim of coercion, only a guilty person ever takes a plea. Its never about the cost and uncertainty of a trial; the uncertainty of the entire government against what you can afford in terms of legal representation and investigation/discovery.
Although unproven --; indeed, unprovable, ...
What is so unprovable? Either FaceBook gave the Russians access to the US data or they did not. FaceBook / Russia collusion seems evident given the summary ;-)
So FaceBook collaborated with the Russians. From the summary:
;-)
"Aleksander Kogan, a Russian data scientist who gave lectures at St. Petersburg State University, gathered Facebook data from millions of Americans."
We're talking about an escrowed key service installed by a manufacturer as a backdoor, keep up. How would you know it was compromised?
Actually that is precisely NOT what we are talking about. Read start of thread, it specifically says this does not require a backdoor, merely one-time archiving of your "passcode" when it is initially set or changed. Manufacturer backdoor is a long debunked assumption.
Keys not under your control and invalidated and replaced quite regularly.
I find no problem with this. I am just pointing out that legitimate UK companies will feel no impact to this symbolic gesture of the EU.
To be fair, the EU rules will increase scams as impersonation becomes more plausible. But symbolism apparently trumps security.
Rules is rules.
Creating a simple Ltd Company in Ireland and hiring an Irish proxy company to be its address, contact, mail recipient, etc establishes an EU presence. Domain registration proceeds. Domain availability uninterrupted by Brexit. Rules is rules, works both ways.
And a stolen key can be passed around just as easily as a broken weak key. Both are unacceptable and the internet will route around such requirements.
A stolen key can be easily invalidated and replaced. Quite different than a weak key.
In the real world, a weak key is identical to an easily stolen key. They are the same, even if they are technically different.
Not really. With a weak key the encryption may be defeated by anyone with sufficient computational power. That is something quite different than a stolen key, the computational power being much more attainable.
The latter is de facto the former.
Not really. You confuse cryptographic strength with decryption key management. Two different things.
You are offering a "weaken the encryption" argument in a "company must archive decryption keys" discussion. These are two different things. The latter does not require the former.
Unless the hardware with the VM running on it has a logger built in, what's to stop people from just running an encrypted VM?
Nothing. Just like there is nothing to prevent you from encrypting your data independently of OS supplied and automatic disk encryption/decryption, independently of your cloud storage provider's automatic encryption. So yes, you can still beat the feds, but that's a different argument than "its impossible" or "it will kill open source", a better argument to pursue.
For day-to-day development and debugging the kernel developer can use a virtual machine.
For external testing kernel developers could register with Red Hat, Canonical, etc and submits their binaries for signing. The signing process could limit the key's use to the developer's and external tester's registered hardware. This sort of stuff already exists, Apple's Ad Hoc distribution for iOS works in this fashion. Apple signs the developer's binary via a web based process and now the developer and their external testers can run it.
Same old caveat, this is not a desirable path.
What would stop it, your hardware vendor requiring a properly signed kernel. Doesn't Red Hat and Canonical already offer signed kernels to support "secure boot"? As I said, its a problem for open source, not necessarily Linux users.
Would the government care if there is a black market for hardware not implementing some sort of "secure boot", doubtful. Few criminals will have them and mere possession of them can itself be a criminal offense by which they can take you off the streets.
Again, not a desirable path to head down, just arguing against the notion that Linux use would somehow be impeded.
What if you're running an OS where Apple/M$/Google/etc is not privy to your LUKS passphrase? Will this ban any OS that doesn't require a "cloud" login?
What I referred to is not a cloud login. Its a one-time archiving of your "passcode" when it is initially set or changed. Day-to-day passcode use would remain offline.
Is this a problem for open source, yes, but that is something separate from technical feasibility. Is this a problem for Linux users, possibly not for many. Red Hat, Canonical, etc could archive things just like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.
Again, none of this is desirable. I'm just arguing against the notion of "impossible". If you don't accept the unpleasant facts how can you effectively address the problem? Lets not misrepresent things and be as ill-informed as the government often is.
You misunderstand. Its not necessarily about being hackable or backdoored. There is no need to remove the current level of encryption and digital signatures and other technical security features, nor is it necessary to prevent further advances in these areas. All that government would need to do is require Apple/Google/Microsoft/etc to archive your passcode, and give up your passcode when presented with a warrant. Yes, that is not desirable. However it is not "banning unhackable communication".
scientific-misconduct investigations by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in America are no more frequent than 20 years ago
Does the Office of Research Integrity have access to more resources than they did 20 years ago? If the number of misconduct investigations is limited by their capacity to investigate then "no more frequent" is meaningless. If ORI can expand their capacity as needed, as more questionable research is reported, then "no more frequent" may be meaningful.
US Federal Law defines the Federal Militia as all able bodied males age 18-45 *plus* the National Guard and Naval Militia. The former are an inactive component of the militia that have no requirement to meet, train, etc ... yet they are legally part of the militia. However the federal government can activate them and order them to report to active forces for service. Many states have similar things in their state constitution.
Has anybody asked him why the pacman generation didn't wander around buildings with corridors while eating M&Ms? The asteroids generation? Did they shoot at rocks? Donkey Kong...?
The real question is why didn't the pacman/asteroids/donkeykong generation wander around the school shooting people? Something has changed and it wasn't the guns. That generation had the AR-15 too. Oh excuse me, using the Mini-14 as they saw the A-Team doing on TV?
" the bullied nerd types used to know better and react in a more civilized manner." Yeah they killed themselves. but I suppose you think that's "more civilized".
Let's pretend your idiotic statement were true, compared to mass murder it is a vast improvement.
But your statement is BS and now back to reality. There were both fewer suicide and fewer murders. They dealt with it, the grew up, they moved beyond it, they realized a-holes were a-holes and learned not to give a sh*t and went on to rule the world we know today.
You seem to be off on a tangent, arguing against a point I did not make. Yes firearms can be dangerous. That's why background checks, training, keeping them locked up are all good ideas. Things I too personally practice. However the points I am making is that (1) mental health needs to be part of the background check process and (2) "assault weapons" are functionally equivalent to semiautomatics that are not on anyone's ban list, put a low capacity hunting magazine into an AR and how is it any more dangerous than regular rifles? I.e. the focus on ARs is a focus on a military *look*. I.e. a tactic to confuse and manipulate the ill-informed.