You can generate self-signed certificates easily enough. It'd block passive third parties from sniffing your traffic, but you'd still have to worry about if the sender is trustworthy or not.
Ah. It'd still be useful to encrypt the entire p2p session at the transport layer to thwart passive scanning, like what they're talking about getting ISPs to do here. They'd be able to find download sites using robots, yep, but they won't be able to monitor downloaders actively trading files.
Any decent mailserver anti-virus software can look inside compressed or encoded attachments. (The really good ones drill down recursively, too, so putting a base64ed zipfile inside a gzipped tar archive wouldn't make a difference.) What makes you think whatever scanning software they'll design to look for these fingerprints won't do the same?
I'd add encrypted filesystems to that list, if you're on an OS that supports it. Also make sure by "whack" you mean "completely destroy the platters" otherwise it's really not good enough. I'd suggest melting/burning them instead; of course with a disk encrypted in the first place it's less of an issue.
What prevents someone from running a p2p app across port 443? It's not like ports are hardcoded into protocols; they're simply defaults or "recommended." Maintaining a list of "known" HTTPS servers is rather unwieldy, sort of like going back to the days when we all used/etc/hosts for name->IP lookups, no? Also what about SSH, VPN, and so on? There're a lot more standard encrypted services people use than HTTPS.
It'd also be quite difficult to tell what is encrypted and what isn't -- encrypted data, like ideally compressed data, is indistinguishable from random noise.
The only route would be to outlaw encrypted p2p apps, I would guess, which would probably be unenforceable in a practical sense anyway. (It's illegal to trade copyright material already; do you see that stopping too many people?)
By this definition a planet like Saturn has thousands if not millions of moons. That is, there are tiny rocks in orbit all around Saturn that are asteroid size (a few metres) and shape, but by your definition they'd be "moons."
And what about all the objects that make up the rings?
Well, this is actually part of the whole conundrum. Jupiter is almost a brown dwarf. Some of these exoplanets that have been discovered, being much larger than Jupiter, are even closer to being brown dwarfs.
Once we discover enough of these things, it'll probably work out in the end to a smooth curve all the way from active stars to brown dwarfs to gas giants to terrestrial planets to moon-sized "planetesimals" to asteroids.
Right, they're not required to, and there are various court decisions to this effect, but that doesn't stop school administrators or teachers who either don't know or don't care from trying to force students to do so. If the kid's smart, it eventually lands the ACLU or some other rights organization on the school's ass and the school backs down knowing they're not going to win legally.
There's also an ongoing battle over whether the "under God" part should be in there at all.
The problem is that some people get too offended when other people's children say the word "God" in a classroom.
The whole battle over religion in school goes way to far nowadays. What needs to be prohibited on First Amendment grounds is any sort of teacher- or authority figure-led religious events (moment of silence with overt religious meaning, prayers over the intercom, religious classes). What the same people need to understand is that student groups organizing after-school Bible study or praying in class or whatever isn't the same thing.
And yeah, I know the Left has as many problems with people's rights as the Right. Hey, the Pledge was originally written by a Socialist back in the nineteenth century--they're much bigger on the whole State worship thing than the Right (except maybe all-out Fascists) ever is or was.
Oh, I quite agree with this. I was just posting glibly because I thought it was mildly amusing to back the original post into a corner of his own making.
New Hampshire has the right motto: "Live Free or Die." Deal with it.
Yep. NH has some of the least-restrictive gun regulations in the nation, too. Their state constitution does one better than the federal and actually enshrines a right to revolt, not just possess weapons that might come in handy. This is where us Free Staters are re-settling eventually if the project works out.
If you haven't read John Taylor Gatto's books yet, you should. He goes into a lot of detail about people like John Dewey and the other architects of American state schooling.
U.S. lawmakers don't understand any of the Amendments, or perhaps the entire Constitution, except maybe this guy. Most of them seem to operate by "Pass any law we can and let the courts sort it out." They see their power as pretty much unlimited and the Constitution merely as an obstacle to get around with sufficiently obfuscated phrasing or hair-splitting, and not as something that they're supposed to protect and uphold.
The Supreme Court decision that stated that the "well-regulated Militia" clause was meant as a prerequisite for firearms possession (as opposed to a mere descriptive phrase, or an example, as many gun rights advocates argue) was United States v. Miller. This case also said that citizens, "when called for service... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
So, since you obviously support this decision, you must believe that ordinary citizens should be able to possess fully-automatic rifles, explosives, and other arms that are "in common use at [this] time." Right?
Yes, it's parsing words, but so's quibbling over meaning of the first clause of the Second Amendment.
Don't forget the much-argued-over Pledge of Allegiance issues. Freedom of speech certainly means the freedom to not speak when it's something you disagree with.
Arresting someone without probable cause is wrong. Arresting someone on a hunch is wrong. Searching someone without probably cause is wrong. Searching someone's house without a warrent is wrong (unless in the heat of a moment or something like that, i.e. if someone ran in there).
I think the biggest thing they need to teach people a lot better is exactly when and how and why cops can stop someone, search someone, and how you can refuse.
You do not have to consent to a search at a traffic stop. The cops can perform various cursory searches, can require you to present your license/registration/insurance information, and can even get away with using drug dogs per a recent USSC decision, but they cannot search much more than that, and you should always refuse to consent to it--so, if they do perform a search beyond what's permissible, you can get it thrown out in court.
You do not have to consent to a search of your person if you're stopped. They can do the various cursory searches like the "Terry" (pat-down) search looking for weapons, but again, you don't have to consent to a search, and they can't look in bags or anything like that. Unless you're in a vehicle, you don't even have to identify yourself to police unless you're in a jurisdiction that has a law stating as such (the recent Hiibel court decision simply said these laws, which exist in 22 out of 50 states, are legal, it did not say cops everywhere can demand ID from people as a lot of people assume).
These are really the most important things--much more police abuse comes from people not knowing they could refuse a warrantless search than arguing over probable cause after the fact.
What isn't covered by the First Amendment is anything lacking "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." That's from Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]). Anything that fits these criteria is covered. Also see this Slashdot story about the federal anti-obscenity law recently being declared unconstitutional; I believe Miller is what either established or upheld it originally.
The First Amendment was also certainly meant to cover religious expression, as that's right in the text. But you really can't argue over intent anyway without committing a logical fallacy.
Heh. Because if you don't agree with it, it should be censored, right? And the US is such a free, "tolerant" place because it shuts down stuff like this. If we're going to be making hackneyed analogies, might I direct you to Orwell: "freedom is slavery" and "doublethink" specifically.
Firstly, if this is a "semi-official" (government-run or -connected?) news site, why isn't it hosted in Iran proper?
If for some reason that's not possible, the best thing one could do if they run a site like this is get it out of the "Land of the Free" United States and host it in a country that actually respects political* free expression. For example, the Iraqi resistance website is hosted in the Netherlands. I've come across a lot of similar sites run by organizations like HAMAS or the Hizballah, and IIRC they were hosted in the Netherlands, too. The Chechens used to have their website hosted in Lithuania, until they posted a communiqué from Shamil Basaev after the Beslan incident, whereupon they got temporarily shut down (probably under pressure from Russia); now the site appears to be in Sweden.
So your best bet if you're running some site like this is to look at Europe, particularly Scandinavia, and ignore any claptrap you hear about "Constitutional" protections in the US (much like the government itself does).
-- * In the US, you can get away with some of the most blatant racism and the bizarrest pornography, all under the ægis of freedom of expression, but anything that comes a bit too close to pissing off the State will quickly find you shut down.
Their name likely is derived from the Arabic word
Faranj or Ifranj, "Franks", which the Arabs used to describe the European merchants in the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean and by extension, all westerners. The name may also derive from a colloqial Italian word ferengi, meaning literally "Yankee Trader".
Slashdot Mirror
You can generate self-signed certificates easily enough. It'd block passive third parties from sniffing your traffic, but you'd still have to worry about if the sender is trustworthy or not.
Ah. It'd still be useful to encrypt the entire p2p session at the transport layer to thwart passive scanning, like what they're talking about getting ISPs to do here. They'd be able to find download sites using robots, yep, but they won't be able to monitor downloaders actively trading files.
Any decent mailserver anti-virus software can look inside compressed or encoded attachments. (The really good ones drill down recursively, too, so putting a base64ed zipfile inside a gzipped tar archive wouldn't make a difference.) What makes you think whatever scanning software they'll design to look for these fingerprints won't do the same?
I'd suggest encrypting the entirety of the p2p traffic (SSL layer or something), otherwise things like headers and searches are still visible.
I'd add encrypted filesystems to that list, if you're on an OS that supports it. Also make sure by "whack" you mean "completely destroy the platters" otherwise it's really not good enough. I'd suggest melting/burning them instead; of course with a disk encrypted in the first place it's less of an issue.
What prevents someone from running a p2p app across port 443? It's not like ports are hardcoded into protocols; they're simply defaults or "recommended." Maintaining a list of "known" HTTPS servers is rather unwieldy, sort of like going back to the days when we all used /etc/hosts for name->IP lookups, no? Also what about SSH, VPN, and so on? There're a lot more standard encrypted services people use than HTTPS.
It'd also be quite difficult to tell what is encrypted and what isn't -- encrypted data, like ideally compressed data, is indistinguishable from random noise.
The only route would be to outlaw encrypted p2p apps, I would guess, which would probably be unenforceable in a practical sense anyway. (It's illegal to trade copyright material already; do you see that stopping too many people?)
Probably a lot easier to just use SSL. Most existing protocols (like HTTP, POP3, IMAP) add an encryption layer this way.
There are already some P2P programs that support encryption, such as Freenet and MUTE.
By this definition a planet like Saturn has thousands if not millions of moons. That is, there are tiny rocks in orbit all around Saturn that are asteroid size (a few metres) and shape, but by your definition they'd be "moons."
And what about all the objects that make up the rings?
Ehm, Mars has a very thin carbon dioxide atmosphere. (Mercury, however, is virtually without an atmosphere.)
Well, this is actually part of the whole conundrum. Jupiter is almost a brown dwarf. Some of these exoplanets that have been discovered, being much larger than Jupiter, are even closer to being brown dwarfs.
Once we discover enough of these things, it'll probably work out in the end to a smooth curve all the way from active stars to brown dwarfs to gas giants to terrestrial planets to moon-sized "planetesimals" to asteroids.
Man, if there was ever a Slashdot article where damn near 100% of the comments are going to be astroturf, this is it.
Organizations like the ACLU usually get involved in the legal fights over this, which I believe they do pro bono.
There's also an ongoing battle over whether the "under God" part should be in there at all. The whole battle over religion in school goes way to far nowadays. What needs to be prohibited on First Amendment grounds is any sort of teacher- or authority figure-led religious events (moment of silence with overt religious meaning, prayers over the intercom, religious classes). What the same people need to understand is that student groups organizing after-school Bible study or praying in class or whatever isn't the same thing.
And yeah, I know the Left has as many problems with people's rights as the Right. Hey, the Pledge was originally written by a Socialist back in the nineteenth century--they're much bigger on the whole State worship thing than the Right (except maybe all-out Fascists) ever is or was.
If you haven't read John Taylor Gatto's books yet, you should. He goes into a lot of detail about people like John Dewey and the other architects of American state schooling.
His major work is published online entirely.
U.S. lawmakers don't understand any of the Amendments, or perhaps the entire Constitution, except maybe this guy. Most of them seem to operate by "Pass any law we can and let the courts sort it out." They see their power as pretty much unlimited and the Constitution merely as an obstacle to get around with sufficiently obfuscated phrasing or hair-splitting, and not as something that they're supposed to protect and uphold.
The Supreme Court decision that stated that the "well-regulated Militia" clause was meant as a prerequisite for firearms possession (as opposed to a mere descriptive phrase, or an example, as many gun rights advocates argue) was United States v. Miller. This case also said that citizens, "when called for service ... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
So, since you obviously support this decision, you must believe that ordinary citizens should be able to possess fully-automatic rifles, explosives, and other arms that are "in common use at [this] time." Right?
Yes, it's parsing words, but so's quibbling over meaning of the first clause of the Second Amendment.
Don't forget the much-argued-over Pledge of Allegiance issues. Freedom of speech certainly means the freedom to not speak when it's something you disagree with.
You do not have to consent to a search at a traffic stop. The cops can perform various cursory searches, can require you to present your license/registration/insurance information, and can even get away with using drug dogs per a recent USSC decision, but they cannot search much more than that, and you should always refuse to consent to it--so, if they do perform a search beyond what's permissible, you can get it thrown out in court.
You do not have to consent to a search of your person if you're stopped. They can do the various cursory searches like the "Terry" (pat-down) search looking for weapons, but again, you don't have to consent to a search, and they can't look in bags or anything like that. Unless you're in a vehicle, you don't even have to identify yourself to police unless you're in a jurisdiction that has a law stating as such (the recent Hiibel court decision simply said these laws, which exist in 22 out of 50 states, are legal, it did not say cops everywhere can demand ID from people as a lot of people assume).
These are really the most important things--much more police abuse comes from people not knowing they could refuse a warrantless search than arguing over probable cause after the fact.
What isn't covered by the First Amendment is anything lacking "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." That's from Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]). Anything that fits these criteria is covered. Also see this Slashdot story about the federal anti-obscenity law recently being declared unconstitutional; I believe Miller is what either established or upheld it originally.
The First Amendment was also certainly meant to cover religious expression, as that's right in the text. But you really can't argue over intent anyway without committing a logical fallacy.
So in other words their government-provided schooling is doing its job.
Heh. Because if you don't agree with it, it should be censored, right? And the US is such a free, "tolerant" place because it shuts down stuff like this. If we're going to be making hackneyed analogies, might I direct you to Orwell: "freedom is slavery" and "doublethink" specifically.
Firstly, if this is a "semi-official" (government-run or -connected?) news site, why isn't it hosted in Iran proper?
If for some reason that's not possible, the best thing one could do if they run a site like this is get it out of the "Land of the Free" United States and host it in a country that actually respects political* free expression. For example, the Iraqi resistance website is hosted in the Netherlands. I've come across a lot of similar sites run by organizations like HAMAS or the Hizballah, and IIRC they were hosted in the Netherlands, too. The Chechens used to have their website hosted in Lithuania, until they posted a communiqué from Shamil Basaev after the Beslan incident, whereupon they got temporarily shut down (probably under pressure from Russia); now the site appears to be in Sweden.
So your best bet if you're running some site like this is to look at Europe, particularly Scandinavia, and ignore any claptrap you hear about "Constitutional" protections in the US (much like the government itself does).
--
* In the US, you can get away with some of the most blatant racism and the bizarrest pornography, all under the ægis of freedom of expression, but anything that comes a bit too close to pissing off the State will quickly find you shut down.
More on the origin of Earth's moon.