actually solveing crime the old ways instead of recording phones and opening mail
Those methods are PART of the 'old ways'. Old laws haven't caught up with new technology. Why is it OK to open someone's mail with a court order, but it's not OK to read their e-mail with a court order? Why is it OK to tap someone's phone with a court order, but it's not OK to tap the new cellphone they just bought, with a court order?
OK, here's a crazy idea I just got while reading your post. How about if we have airline "memberships," issuable by any domestic airline (using rigid standards for how the process is carried out.) A 'member' would be issued a photo ID entitling him or her to pass through security on par with current standards. Non-members would be subjected to more rigid security checks, including biometrics, database queries using whatever ID is presented, etc. The database of members would be bounced off of arrest records, intelligence reports, etc periodically.
This would basically equate to a "license to fly." For those who would say that this is an egregious invasion of privacy, please note that we have never had a "right" to fly, and that this program would not, in fact, prevent anyone from flying. A membership simply indicates that a person has been "pre-screened." I don't think this would be much more difficult to implement than frequent flyer programs...they'd just have to add a database query and a central registration.
I'd say they're pretty effectively preventing us from getting vaccinated.
You didn't state your position on the facial recognition, so I don't know if I am directing this at the right person, but this statement within the general tone of this particular discussion sounds a little contradictory to me. On the one hand, government efforts to stop people from killing the general populous are seen as "invasion of privacy," while the government NOT vaccinating everybody is seen as tantamount to PREVENTING us from getting vaccinated. It's a minor point, but I don't think it's accurate to say that the government in PREVENTING us from being vaccinated. By the way, where do the veterinarians get their vaccine? Are they also preventing us from getting vaccinated?
You seem like a decent person, and I'm not trying to be nasty. I just don't care for the implication that the government are the bad guys in this. There's simply not enough vaccine (yet.)
i.e., some non-terrorists will be identified as terrorists.
Most of the arguments I hear against facial recognition technology fall into this same lame category. The system will not say "This Person is a Terrorist." The system will simply indicate that there is a possible match with a person on a watch list. I suspect that the grand majority of false positives will be resolved quickly with an ID check. In fact, I'm going to stop using the term 'false positive.' The match is in fact POSITIVE, meaning that the person going through the checkpoint does indeed look like a person on the watch list...and the humans will take over from there.
There is NO difference between using this technology and having a person with a notebook of mugshots sitting at the check point, except that the former is much more efficient. Come to think of it, why don't we hear arguments against standard mugshots in police departments, since they are so subjective and fallable? IT'S JUST A TOOL, PEOPLE! It's not a substitute for human judgment...it's an enhancement to that judgment.
I don't know about the goatee, but as it stands we are required to take the metal out of our pockets, put purses and cell phones through the x-ray. I don't see why we couldn't have people take off their glasses when they go through the checkpoint. Requiring beards to be shaved off may be a bit of an intrusion...
This thread is a little misleading. The prints required at banks (as far as I've seen, that is) are quick thumbprints using colorless ink (it reacts with a chemical on the paper they put it on, I assume.) There's a little ink pad by each teller window. It's as quick as signing a form, and no less intrusive, in my opinion. It's not like they take you into the back room for a full set of black, inky prints on one of those FBI cards.
I think this is an excellent opportunity to put things in perspective. The FBI, along with other government agencies, are much maligned on Slashdot. Now, I'm all for civil debate. Wanting to know the facts, and not believing everything you're told, are good things that should be encouraged here in the US. Those principles are espoused here except, it seems, when dealing with law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Remember this case next time you are quick to judge an investigation or trial.
As soon as I read this article, I was struck by the irony of Slashdotters throwing in with the ISP's to stop the spread of this virus, just days after hundreds had decried attempts by the FBI and other agencies to root out and stop murderous terrorists. I guess it's OK to go through server logs and port scanner results to find infected and vulnerable machines, but it's not OK to go through server logs to find out with whom a known terrorist has been communicating.
Comms and Computers are heavily restricted in that country...
The people we are talking about are not just average folks...they are the guests of the Taliban.
On another subject, I have been surprised to see CNN reports coming out of Afganistan using videophones. I'm surprised they allow that, but I'm not suprised they allow bin Laden to do whatever he wants. And how would they stop him anyway?
Until thought becomes a crime (I hope never) it will always be possible for one person to plan something like this.
Keep in mind that the FBI and other agencies run into roadblocks when dealing with KNOWN BAD GUYS. A trail goes cold because they are not allowed to access certain information about these KNOWN BAD GUYS.
I'm all for easing of restrictions that allow authorities to track KNOWN BAD GUYS.
...the FBI rushed Carnivorei nto service at the "freemail" providers like yahoo, when there was no evidence that the terrorists even knew freemail existed
I've heard at least one report that they did in fact use Yahoo.
...the internet is banned for the afgan people; the phone service barely exists there, never mind ISPs.
You must be joking. Many of the conspirators were right here in the US, where they enjoyed every one of the freedoms that have been debated on this site. As for the ones outside our borders...they have satphones, laptops, etc
The hits I mentioned definitely weren't code red...no default.ida nor the charactaristic xxxxxxx. These hits were virtually identical to the thousands of NIMDA hits I've gotten today, but they were on 10 September.
I just checked back through my logs, and found about a dozen hits from a single IP on September 10th. It tried to get cmd.exe, root.exe, NULL.ida, index.asp, and index.php.Anyone with more experience than me know what that's all about?
Geez, we can't watch that movie, and we can't release that video game, and we can't listen to this or that.
What you describe is not the work of conservatives. If anything, this ban list (which I believe is a hoax) is the work of those types of people who think nobody should ever run the risk of being offended...definitely not a conservative philosophy.
By the way, which movies have you not been able to watch? Are you 17?
OK, I've looked around, and I believe we've been taken in by a hoax. This isn't being reported anywhere else, it's based on an email that says "I checked with them and they confirmed it," and anyone who has looked at the list can see that it is just sheer lunacy. I'm embarassed that I bought it for a while.
The more I think about it, the more I see the brilliance in this move. None of these songs are on the current playlist, which has 17 songs on it. It's a win-win situation for ClearChannel--they get to fight terrorism, and they don't have to rotate their 17-song playlist at the end of the fiscal quarter, which they would have had to do at the end of this month.
Slashdot Mirror
actually solveing crime the old ways instead of recording phones and opening mail
Those methods are PART of the 'old ways'. Old laws haven't caught up with new technology. Why is it OK to open someone's mail with a court order, but it's not OK to read their e-mail with a court order? Why is it OK to tap someone's phone with a court order, but it's not OK to tap the new cellphone they just bought, with a court order?
I'm holding out for carGNivore.
Or GNOC (GNOC's Not Carnivore)
6.6.6.0/24
Subnet of the beast
OK, here's a crazy idea I just got while reading your post. How about if we have airline "memberships," issuable by any domestic airline (using rigid standards for how the process is carried out.) A 'member' would be issued a photo ID entitling him or her to pass through security on par with current standards. Non-members would be subjected to more rigid security checks, including biometrics, database queries using whatever ID is presented, etc. The database of members would be bounced off of arrest records, intelligence reports, etc periodically.
This would basically equate to a "license to fly." For those who would say that this is an egregious invasion of privacy, please note that we have never had a "right" to fly, and that this program would not, in fact, prevent anyone from flying. A membership simply indicates that a person has been "pre-screened." I don't think this would be much more difficult to implement than frequent flyer programs...they'd just have to add a database query and a central registration.
I read the article, and I don't know where you got that 1 in 3 figure. Can you elaborate?
I'd say they're pretty effectively preventing us from getting vaccinated.
You didn't state your position on the facial recognition, so I don't know if I am directing this at the right person, but this statement within the general tone of this particular discussion sounds a little contradictory to me. On the one hand, government efforts to stop people from killing the general populous are seen as "invasion of privacy," while the government NOT vaccinating everybody is seen as tantamount to PREVENTING us from getting vaccinated. It's a minor point, but I don't think it's accurate to say that the government in PREVENTING us from being vaccinated. By the way, where do the veterinarians get their vaccine? Are they also preventing us from getting vaccinated?
You seem like a decent person, and I'm not trying to be nasty. I just don't care for the implication that the government are the bad guys in this. There's simply not enough vaccine (yet.)
i.e., some non-terrorists will be identified as terrorists.
Most of the arguments I hear against facial recognition technology fall into this same lame category. The system will not say "This Person is a Terrorist." The system will simply indicate that there is a possible match with a person on a watch list. I suspect that the grand majority of false positives will be resolved quickly with an ID check. In fact, I'm going to stop using the term 'false positive.' The match is in fact POSITIVE, meaning that the person going through the checkpoint does indeed look like a person on the watch list...and the humans will take over from there.
There is NO difference between using this technology and having a person with a notebook of mugshots sitting at the check point, except that the former is much more efficient. Come to think of it, why don't we hear arguments against standard mugshots in police departments, since they are so subjective and fallable? IT'S JUST A TOOL, PEOPLE! It's not a substitute for human judgment...it's an enhancement to that judgment.
I don't know about the goatee, but as it stands we are required to take the metal out of our pockets, put purses and cell phones through the x-ray. I don't see why we couldn't have people take off their glasses when they go through the checkpoint. Requiring beards to be shaved off may be a bit of an intrusion...
the US government isn't letting anyone but the military be vaccinated!
Not true. Perhaps you meant to say that the government is not PROVIDING vaccinations to anyone but the military. And there's barely enough for that.
This thread is a little misleading. The prints required at banks (as far as I've seen, that is) are quick thumbprints using colorless ink (it reacts with a chemical on the paper they put it on, I assume.) There's a little ink pad by each teller window. It's as quick as signing a form, and no less intrusive, in my opinion. It's not like they take you into the back room for a full set of black, inky prints on one of those FBI cards.
Hmmm...maybe the FBI really ARE the good guys!
I think this is an excellent opportunity to put things in perspective. The FBI, along with other government agencies, are much maligned on Slashdot. Now, I'm all for civil debate. Wanting to know the facts, and not believing everything you're told, are good things that should be encouraged here in the US. Those principles are espoused here except, it seems, when dealing with law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Remember this case next time you are quick to judge an investigation or trial.
Hello. How are you?
I send you this tarball in order to have your opinion.
I guess I forgot the < sarcasm > tags.
As soon as I read this article, I was struck by the irony of Slashdotters throwing in with the ISP's to stop the spread of this virus, just days after hundreds had decried attempts by the FBI and other agencies to root out and stop murderous terrorists. I guess it's OK to go through server logs and port scanner results to find infected and vulnerable machines, but it's not OK to go through server logs to find out with whom a known terrorist has been communicating.
It's happening already. Our civil liberties are under attack...we are being denied our right to a broadband connection.
If we take these precautionary steps, then the worm has won.
Comms and Computers are heavily restricted in that country...
The people we are talking about are not just average folks...they are the guests of the Taliban.
On another subject, I have been surprised to see CNN reports coming out of Afganistan using videophones. I'm surprised they allow that, but I'm not suprised they allow bin Laden to do whatever he wants. And how would they stop him anyway?
Until thought becomes a crime (I hope never) it will always be possible for one person to plan something like this.
Keep in mind that the FBI and other agencies run into roadblocks when dealing with KNOWN BAD GUYS. A trail goes cold because they are not allowed to access certain information about these KNOWN BAD GUYS.
I'm all for easing of restrictions that allow authorities to track KNOWN BAD GUYS.
...the FBI rushed Carnivorei nto service at the "freemail" providers like yahoo, when there was no evidence that the terrorists even knew freemail existed
...the internet is banned for the afgan people; the phone service barely exists there, never mind ISPs.
I've heard at least one report that they did in fact use Yahoo.
You must be joking. Many of the conspirators were right here in the US, where they enjoyed every one of the freedoms that have been debated on this site. As for the ones outside our borders...they have satphones, laptops, etc
The hits I mentioned definitely weren't code red...no default.ida nor the charactaristic xxxxxxx. These hits were virtually identical to the thousands of NIMDA hits I've gotten today, but they were on 10 September.
I haven't seen these "recent news reports" that you cite. Could you post a link to them? Or at least tell me where you saw them?
I just checked back through my logs, and found about a dozen hits from a single IP on September 10th. It tried to get cmd.exe, root.exe, NULL.ida, index.asp, and index.php.Anyone with more experience than me know what that's all about?
If we don't change our lifestyle, they will win.
I have a link to an infected index.html.
PLEASE USE THIS LINK RESPONSIBLY. If you are running MS something, you risk infection.
I've seen two variants. The first said (red letters on a black background):
fuck CHINA Government
fuck PoisonBOx
The other version said fuck USA Government.
USE LINK WITH CAUTION..it will attempt to load a script: (actually, to be on the safe side I'm just using the IP rather than a complete link:)
216.47.210.11
Geez, we can't watch that movie, and we can't release that video game, and we can't listen to this or that.
What you describe is not the work of conservatives. If anything, this ban list (which I believe is a hoax) is the work of those types of people who think nobody should ever run the risk of being offended...definitely not a conservative philosophy.
By the way, which movies have you not been able to watch? Are you 17?
OK, I've looked around, and I believe we've been taken in by a hoax. This isn't being reported anywhere else, it's based on an email that says "I checked with them and they confirmed it," and anyone who has looked at the list can see that it is just sheer lunacy. I'm embarassed that I bought it for a while.
The more I think about it, the more I see the brilliance in this move. None of these songs are on the current playlist, which has 17 songs on it. It's a win-win situation for ClearChannel--they get to fight terrorism, and they don't have to rotate their 17-song playlist at the end of the fiscal quarter, which they would have had to do at the end of this month.