Yes, the Hidden Partition feature of TrueCrypt is particularly useful in this regard. Once configured and the OS set-up finished you'll have two decryption keys. One for secure use, and one for the Border Patrol. There's no way to prove how many keys can decrypt the data, nor can it be proved that more than 1 key exists. Basically, you can plausibly deny the existence of any key other than the one you give to the Border Patrol, and they can't prove different.
That's a false analogy because physical objects like bags and intangible objects like data structures are not direct parallels. You can duplicate data, for one thing. Data also can't explode and harm people standing near the storage device, or poison people. Data is only meaningful/useful when consumed by people or machines. Encrypted data on a storage device has no greater agency than data traveling down fiber -- none at all.
I REALLY don't understand what you are talking about with your proscriptions on carrying data or locked suitcases for employers. Have you never heard of professional couriers? Though again, it's irrelevant, since you're failing to comprehend important fundamental differences between *information* and *physical objects*.
That's more a problem with the police than with Apple though, isn't it? Not that Apple was right in requesting such action, but the police never should have consented, regardless. Hitmen still get charged with murder, AFAIK.
Maybe this judge *really* didn't want to be on record finding that Pastafarianism is a religion, but also knew he was drawing an extremely arbitrary line; one which could constitute religious discrimination on his part.. so he left the appeals door wide open.
Wouldn't it be nearly immediately detectable by network analysis? There'd be an uptick in traffic commensurate with the sending of duplicate data, right?
Oh my bad, I see what you were getting at -- that finding in this case would be applicable in another scope: that of an individual being compelled to decrypt, say, their hard drive. Point taken.
I think you're correct in the assessment of the implications of encrypted data being fundamentally different from plaintext -- but I think that the Third-Party Doctrine would come into play as well; they aren't forcing someone to testify against themselves, they are forcing a third party to testify against you.
If the hypothesis is correct then this IS NOT a "fuel-free" engine -- it's using electrons as reaction mass. The novel feature is simply the means by which they are accelerated and the fact that an accelerator isn't required to collimate the beam into a coherent stream, i.e. they don't fly off randomly in every direction as electrons normally would do upon reaching ionization potential.
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.” -- James D. Nichols
If this effect is real, then it's also being retconned into my parents generation (I'm 31) as well; I think it's more about the changing nature of our technological products and the fact that they are not constructed in a manner conducive to repair.
Chrome doesn't read your emails and what personal information the browser does "phone home" to Google can be disabled if you so wish. The scanning of emails for ad targeting is done server-side for Gmail; still, if you replace "Google's browser" with "Gmail" then you'd have a statement I'd probably agree with. Personally I don't mind my email being checked by an algorithm to generate keywords for advertising; the keywords are only used while that specific email is open on-screen, so it's not like Google is amassing a database of every keyword ever found in any of your email -- that WOULD concern me.
When you speak you exhale; if your airway is restricted or partially-blocked you can still potentially force air out by creating high pressure in excess of 1 ATM using muscles. When you inhale, however, the force to move the air comes entirely from the pressure difference between your lungs and the environment; assuming you could pull a vacuum with your lungs the best you can EVER achieve would be 1 ATM of pressure forcing air into you -- without external help. EMTs can use bag-valve-mask hand ventilators to provide a source of high-pressure air to help force it into you (assisted breathing) but that would require the cops to actually give a crap and get help.
Agreed. We've hired cops who aren't genuinely prepared to risk their personal safety for the benefit of their community. In any given cop-citizen interaction the cop is almost guaranteed to react to perceived threats with excessive force because they don't have any incentive to NOT shoot first -- there's no reason for the officer to wonder if it's the citizen who is in the most danger. I live in a smallish city, but I routinely go out of my way to avoid being near cops; I've got a couple friends that are officers and them I like, but the rest.. I'm not taking the chance.. I don't trust their judgement in situations where the line between threat and non-threat isn't black&white.
Depends on the state in the US, but many of them are at-will and you can be terminated at any time. They can fire you with no reason given and it's legal; if they cite a reason then you might be able to sue, if you can prove an illegal reason for firing.
You're right about the fact that a sworn officer of the law is supposed to be risking their personal safety by giving the benefit-of-the-doubt and not shooting immediately. Unfortunately we've allowed a culture to build up where the cops are trained to make sure they "come home safe" by erring excessively on the side of shooting first. Your idea about killing them is dumb, but the cops who shoot first are also not true police officers -- they've forgotten that serving and protecting also means protecting innocent citizens from use of force, too.
It's a problem of incentivization. No one wants to be hurt or killed, but being a cop means putting yourself into unpredictable situations. The officer has lots of incentive to shoot first, because we (society) haven't given them any good disincentive NOT to. In any given cop-citizen interaction the citizen could be a threat, or could be a harmless innocent; we need to give the cops incentive to look carefully before they shoot, because right now anytime you talk to a cop you have an INCREASED chance of being shot than if the cop wasn't around. The cops need to know they'll pay big-time if they don't take care to protect us from their own fight-or-flight response.
There is this stigma around civil forfeiture; John Oliver showed how it's being routinely used against innocent citizens, but still.. people who don't consider themselves criminals don't believe it'll happen to them until it's too late. This is why my car's dash cam dumps to the cloud when I hit a panic button.
Employers have typically less tolerance for crimes committed on-the-job than for ones you might commit on your own time, out of their sight; why should a police department have a different standard for crimes, even minor ones, committed under color of law?
When it comes to arresting citizens for recording, and the deletion of the recordings, the courts DON'T accept that excuse from cops anymore. That's why Baltimore has paid out those millions recently.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the Hidden Partition feature of TrueCrypt is particularly useful in this regard. Once configured and the OS set-up finished you'll have two decryption keys. One for secure use, and one for the Border Patrol. There's no way to prove how many keys can decrypt the data, nor can it be proved that more than 1 key exists. Basically, you can plausibly deny the existence of any key other than the one you give to the Border Patrol, and they can't prove different.
That's a false analogy because physical objects like bags and intangible objects like data structures are not direct parallels. You can duplicate data, for one thing. Data also can't explode and harm people standing near the storage device, or poison people. Data is only meaningful/useful when consumed by people or machines. Encrypted data on a storage device has no greater agency than data traveling down fiber -- none at all. I REALLY don't understand what you are talking about with your proscriptions on carrying data or locked suitcases for employers. Have you never heard of professional couriers? Though again, it's irrelevant, since you're failing to comprehend important fundamental differences between *information* and *physical objects*.
Then you last checked sometime before the arrest, because the server has been inaccessible since then.
That's more a problem with the police than with Apple though, isn't it? Not that Apple was right in requesting such action, but the police never should have consented, regardless. Hitmen still get charged with murder, AFAIK.
No, insurance is for people in all kinds of health to cover the risk of illness or injury.
This entire post should be quoted; it was broadcast on the radio today verbatim. The only novelty here is the insertion of hyperlinks.
Maybe this judge *really* didn't want to be on record finding that Pastafarianism is a religion, but also knew he was drawing an extremely arbitrary line; one which could constitute religious discrimination on his part.. so he left the appeals door wide open.
Wouldn't it be nearly immediately detectable by network analysis? There'd be an uptick in traffic commensurate with the sending of duplicate data, right?
Oh my bad, I see what you were getting at -- that finding in this case would be applicable in another scope: that of an individual being compelled to decrypt, say, their hard drive. Point taken.
I think you're correct in the assessment of the implications of encrypted data being fundamentally different from plaintext -- but I think that the Third-Party Doctrine would come into play as well; they aren't forcing someone to testify against themselves, they are forcing a third party to testify against you.
If the hypothesis is correct then this IS NOT a "fuel-free" engine -- it's using electrons as reaction mass. The novel feature is simply the means by which they are accelerated and the fact that an accelerator isn't required to collimate the beam into a coherent stream, i.e. they don't fly off randomly in every direction as electrons normally would do upon reaching ionization potential.
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.” -- James D. Nichols
It makes sense; it's like herd immunity for smartphone theft.
If this effect is real, then it's also being retconned into my parents generation (I'm 31) as well; I think it's more about the changing nature of our technological products and the fact that they are not constructed in a manner conducive to repair.
Chrome doesn't read your emails and what personal information the browser does "phone home" to Google can be disabled if you so wish. The scanning of emails for ad targeting is done server-side for Gmail; still, if you replace "Google's browser" with "Gmail" then you'd have a statement I'd probably agree with. Personally I don't mind my email being checked by an algorithm to generate keywords for advertising; the keywords are only used while that specific email is open on-screen, so it's not like Google is amassing a database of every keyword ever found in any of your email -- that WOULD concern me.
Percentages can be negative; that is a perfectly normal and correct way to show the magnitude of a decrease.
When you speak you exhale; if your airway is restricted or partially-blocked you can still potentially force air out by creating high pressure in excess of 1 ATM using muscles. When you inhale, however, the force to move the air comes entirely from the pressure difference between your lungs and the environment; assuming you could pull a vacuum with your lungs the best you can EVER achieve would be 1 ATM of pressure forcing air into you -- without external help. EMTs can use bag-valve-mask hand ventilators to provide a source of high-pressure air to help force it into you (assisted breathing) but that would require the cops to actually give a crap and get help.
Agreed. We've hired cops who aren't genuinely prepared to risk their personal safety for the benefit of their community. In any given cop-citizen interaction the cop is almost guaranteed to react to perceived threats with excessive force because they don't have any incentive to NOT shoot first -- there's no reason for the officer to wonder if it's the citizen who is in the most danger. I live in a smallish city, but I routinely go out of my way to avoid being near cops; I've got a couple friends that are officers and them I like, but the rest.. I'm not taking the chance.. I don't trust their judgement in situations where the line between threat and non-threat isn't black&white.
Depends on the state in the US, but many of them are at-will and you can be terminated at any time. They can fire you with no reason given and it's legal; if they cite a reason then you might be able to sue, if you can prove an illegal reason for firing.
Would it be much different? They already dress up like soldiers; at least soldiers follow rules of engagement and have proper training.
You're right about the fact that a sworn officer of the law is supposed to be risking their personal safety by giving the benefit-of-the-doubt and not shooting immediately. Unfortunately we've allowed a culture to build up where the cops are trained to make sure they "come home safe" by erring excessively on the side of shooting first. Your idea about killing them is dumb, but the cops who shoot first are also not true police officers -- they've forgotten that serving and protecting also means protecting innocent citizens from use of force, too.
It's a problem of incentivization. No one wants to be hurt or killed, but being a cop means putting yourself into unpredictable situations. The officer has lots of incentive to shoot first, because we (society) haven't given them any good disincentive NOT to. In any given cop-citizen interaction the citizen could be a threat, or could be a harmless innocent; we need to give the cops incentive to look carefully before they shoot, because right now anytime you talk to a cop you have an INCREASED chance of being shot than if the cop wasn't around. The cops need to know they'll pay big-time if they don't take care to protect us from their own fight-or-flight response.
There is this stigma around civil forfeiture; John Oliver showed how it's being routinely used against innocent citizens, but still.. people who don't consider themselves criminals don't believe it'll happen to them until it's too late. This is why my car's dash cam dumps to the cloud when I hit a panic button.
Employers have typically less tolerance for crimes committed on-the-job than for ones you might commit on your own time, out of their sight; why should a police department have a different standard for crimes, even minor ones, committed under color of law?
When it comes to arresting citizens for recording, and the deletion of the recordings, the courts DON'T accept that excuse from cops anymore. That's why Baltimore has paid out those millions recently.