"To be fair, is Microsoft is building its Windows for safety critical use? I don't know about CE, but I don't think their OSes are designed for that. Kinda seems like comparing apples to oranges...
Not that I believe an OS should be riddled with spurious "features"
While I agree that MS consumer OS's are not intended to run mission critical apps (like nuke plants, etc), nor their professional OS's for that matter, I don't believe that ANY company making a defective product deserves any more protection against disseminating that information than any other.
For one thing, there is the matter of the 1st amendment. Secondly, MS authored bug reports are not marketable in any way, unless they plan to charge to receive them. MS no more deserves copyright on publically released defect reports than do Ford, GM, or Chrysler. The same standard should apply.
"Furthermore, that this information is needed, and was being distributed specifically to forward the end of stopping illegal activities and protecting the people. As such it was in the best interest of the public that the information be distributed."
This is why the CPSC REQUIRES public domain safety bulletins on cars and other products. Why should Microsoft be entitled to keep control of their bug reports? After all, these reports are of interest to their customers and potential customers. And many M$ bugs are potentially dangerous (the I Love you virus, etc).
"But while I think it's fair to be worried about the DMCA and UCITA, this vanilla enforcement of copyrights by Microsoft, while draconian and unwise, shouldn't lead to paranoia and hysteria."
I think it's our right to be paranoid about it. Whenever someone is taking action to hide defects in a product, that should give you pause before buying it. The problem is that MS can get away with it because they have the monopoly on Windows type OS's. Yes, I primarily use Linux, but most people don't yet.
To go back to my car example: If Ford, in response to the Explorer/Firestone tire flap were to declare that all their defect bulletins are copyrighted, and can't be published anywhere except on a buried part of their website. And, let's assume Ford has a history of moving, removing, etc, information around their website to hide it.
I would certainly NOT buy another Ford automobile (which I'm predisposed to do after owning one for 7 years).
The problem is "consumers" are not as astute about this kind of thing as we are. And this action by MS will certainly slow down circulation of information on their bugs.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MS essentially tell SlashDot that having links to places that contained copyrighted information was the same as posting it?
So... Maybe Microsoft bugs should just not be posted anywhere."
I am not sure on this one. I do remember that they tried to order/. to remove the plain text of their Keberos "enhancements" that were posted in the comments.
It's quite possible that MS could make that argument, as Slashdotter's FAVORITE judge, Kaplan of the DeCSS vs 2600 case, made publishing links to DeCSS illegal.
Another reason why that judge's insane and indefensible judgement needs to be appealed and reversed.
"If MS doesn't recant, here is my solution to this problem:
Stop vendor notification of MS Security holes."
You make an excellent and insightful point, but I think the gist of this action is that MS doesn't give a shit about bugs or bug reports. If they can stop people from KNOWING about bugs (and they are doing this by severely limiting and taking control of disseminating this information) then bugs aren't a problem.
MS doesn't want to know about bugs, and they don't want YOU to know. They especially don't want the average MIS manager (who are typically much less technically astute than those they manage) to know about bugs.
"Reducing reporting of bugs won't reduce bugs. Quite the opposite. The answer is to stop using software that not only sucks, but has a company intent on making the whole experience less enjoyable."
The reason for this action is obvious. Microsoft doesn't really care at ALL about bugs, or their effect on their customers. Why? Because they don't have to, they are a monopoly, there is no incentive or reason for them to produce a safe and defect-free product.
Microsoft doesn't want you to know there are bugs, just as any giant corporation (Ford/Firestone, et all) would rather hide the dirty laundry.
In fact, how many expensive Microsoft "Upgrades" have been mainly bug fixes? Windows 98, 98SE, and ME come to mind... All are essentially the SAME as Windows 95, only more stable (well, somewhat).
"If you don't follow the link immediately and save the content for some future day when you might need it, you may never see it again.
For vendor security bulletins to have any real meaning, you must have some degree of trust for the vendor. This is one more violation of that trust by Microsoft."
Microsoft has already proven that they can't be trusted. If they made cars the way they do software, thousands would be dying daily, and they would be able to keep the defect information copyrighted and proprietary.
Independant review of Microsoft is necessary in order to fairly evaluate the product. Publishing bug reports only on their website is unacceptable. Automobile safety defect reports are public domain and published everywhere.
Why is Microsoft entitled to keep their defect information copyrighted?
"I fail to see how the DMCA actually applies to this case at all. The DMCA (or at least the part of it that/. readers usually care about) forbids the circumvention of access control methods.
Microsoft is publishing its security bulletins in plaintext on a publicly-accessible web page. No access control. No DMCA implications."
This may be the next step though. They may take the bug bulletins private, even implementing some kind of very weak protection.
And yes, the DMCA can apply to this. Microsoft is now establishing copyright control on their bugs. Therefore, they could imvoke the DMCA on anyone, any site, that discloses, analyzes, comments on them, etc.
This is a scary precedent if allowed to stand. I think purchasers of defective products have a right to know what potentially harmful defects exist. Especially when your company's information could be hacked, stolen, destroyed.
Maybe it is time to start firing MIS managers for purchasing Microsoft...
Now Microsoft claims copyright on their BUG reports? How is this different from reports on car defects? Those reports are always published.
Now can Ford/Firestone, et all use the Microsoft method and bury their reports of defects under some obscure URL?
And yes, bugs in Microsoft software ARE safety threatening. How many of the most embarassing bugs in MS software have been gaping exploits that have allowed hackers in, and allowed new generations of viruses exploit MS software to transmit themselves worldwide, quickly?
If Microsoft made cars the hood would be welded shut so you can't look at the engine, and Consumer Reports would be put out of business because they wouldn't be allowed to publish recall notices.
I think the Consumer Products Safety Comission needs to look at this. Microsoft bugs and holes demonstrably threaten consumer safety, and should be published and public domain when they are discovered. You have a RIGHT to know that a product you bought is defective and potentially dangerous.
"This ignorance appears to cover a large number of US citizens, including those directly involved in law enforcment. How often has a US judge thrown out a case invalid due to the US constitution and jailed the prosecuter for contempt of court?"
Never. But then the judiciary is part of the power grab. Since the 70's, the federal courts have been in the business of making law, not in their Constitutional role of evaluating the constitutionality of laws.
What this all ties into is that the long distance companies have become obsolete. And probably were some time ago. They've been making extra profits by selling metered access to the long distance phone network rather than selling it flat rate.
The Internet proves that telcos can sell worldwide unmetered network access and still make tons of money. Why should government step in to gurantee the long distance voice carriers continued profits, when their business model is flawed and obsolete?
Competition with the internet is GOOD for the consumer. Long distance rates have plummeted in the last few years. Sooner or later, LD carriers are going to HAVE to offer unlimited LD service to compete. This is a GOOD THING, and the Internet proves this can be done and still make good money. Any government that seeks to prevent this, and act in favor of an obsolete industry that needs to be FORCED to evolve, to the disadvantage of it's citizens is unjust.
Why should any government agency regulate voice over IP? The justification for regulating TV and radio is because of the limited spectrum.
The internet does not have limited spectrum, it grows as needed.
There is no "right" to profit. Should the Feds have allowed the horse and buggy industry regulate the roads? Should the Feds have let the railroads regulate the airlines? Should the Feds have let the slide rule makers regulate the computer industry?
Any government that allows old technology to regulate new for the purpose of ARTIFICIALLY extending the life of an obsolete industry is going to become a technological backwater.
" The lack of respect for personal privacy remains a hole in the current US constitution's Bill of Rights. With information becoming a central plank of people's lives in a way never before seen, perhaps it's time an amendment to bring the 4th into the 21st Century."
This will never happen. The marketing industry and law enforcement's lobbys will never let this happen. The US government is rotten with corruption, hence laws like the DMCA passed unanimously in virtual secrecy.
It's better to argue that because of the 4th, 5th and 10th amendments, plus the 14th (right to not be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law) already cover government snooping, which they actually do.
What would be the point of amending the Constitution anyway, when the problem is the federal government since 1933 has basically ignored any Constitutional restriction on it's power?
"The right to keep and bear arms is the ultimate check and balance on government.
Wow, is this a flamebait or some sort of second-level joke ?"
No it isn't. If government has no reason to fear the citizenry it has no reason to be honest. This is clearly the REASON for the 2nd Amendment, if you read the Federalist Papers and other writings by the Founders, particularly Jefferson.
The battle of Lexington and Concord, and thus, the revolution, started when the British tried to seize the weapons of the Masachusetts Minutemen.
No government can stand against an outraged armed citizenry. Particularly since in the case of the US, the military would likely refuse to ever obey orders to open fire on US civillians. Hence the reason why the fascist types have been heavily arming and militarizing the police forces.
"So you're saying that when the police come and say "Can we have your PGP key please?" you should blow them away? And exactly how would that help?
"
I don't advocate violence, but an unjust law, particularly one that is immoral and illegal (as per the UK's membership in the EU, RIP contradicts it's charter) is no law at all.
So far the US and UK governments are set on violating their own laws to impliment spyware on citizens so...
If violence is what it takes, if a few government stormtroopers start biting the dust when they illegally invade a private residence, so be it.
My American ancestors once started killing British "law enforcement" for much the same reason.
Read the US Declaration of Independance. It WAS passed into law by the US Congress, and thus is law in the USA.
"What a load of proposterous bullshit. I'm sorry, but the typical Briton knows and trusts his fellow man? Bwahahahahahaa! "Britain has no need of written constitutions, freedom laws etc etc. In Britain, the institutions of government are trusted and respected, and can be relied upon to do their job in a fair manner." Oh yeah, and pigs will fly"
Blindly trusting government is as foolish as trusting a 16 year old with booze, your car, and your daughter.
In 1933, the Germans trusted Hitler, and look what it got them?
"But that's not very useful in the UK. Should 'they' wish to, they can demand your keys, and if you deny you have them/refuse you can go to jail (sentenced in a private court) for up to 5 years (I think it's 5). If you tell anyone about being asked for your keys, you can similarly be sent to jail."
This is what you get when you let them take away your guns. The right to keep and bear arms is the ultimate check and balance on government. After all, ALL government power, irregardless of how minir flows from the barrel of a gun. Violate any law, just or unjust, and government officials with guns will come and get you.
Same thing, the only power the CITIZENS actually have to make government obey it's own laws flows from the barrel of a gun. If the government doesn't fear it's citizens, then there is no need to obey the law, or even respect the outcome of an election. Something like this is happening in the USA now, and I think this kind of thing is going to be a growing trend in elections.
"And a written constitution is no guarantee against attacks on privacy without clauses protecting privacy and/or a seperation and definition of powers that would prevent government from doing that."
You are correct. The US Federal government has been blatantly disregarding the 9th and 10th amendments that limit the power of government since 1933.
How do they get away with this? Apathy and laziness. Only rarely do American public educational institutions actually teach non-Marxist civcs anymore. People are ignorant of the Constitution and the Feds take advantage of this, and for this reason, I don't think public education will EVER improve, they don't want it to. Ignorant people who don't know their rights are a lot easier to fool.
Also, there is a growing permanent underclass that depend on government, and vote for the candidates that will give them the most "bread and circuses".
"Interestingly, the US constitution, probably the best known of the written constitutions that has a bill of rights written into it, has no direct, blanket, protection of privacy within it, beyond basic protections against unreasonable searches, which is probably why the US government feels it can get away with systems like Carnivore."
Actually, it IS there. It's the 10th Amendment that forbids the Federal Government (and that includes the FBI, CIA, BATF, Janet Reno, et all) from excercising any power not SPECIFICALLY granted to it in the Constitution.
Also, the 4th Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant, and the 5th Amendment which grants the right against self incrimination would seem to make any such systematic wiretapping of e-mail illegal.
The Founders couldn't forsee a time where technology would enable the types of searches and seizures that can happen today, but these protections ARE there. It's just that our ever more corrupt and self-serving government won't obey it, because We, the People have become too ignorant or dependant to make them.
" the Clinton administration trashing of people's reputations using 'confidential' government records as prime evidence of just how this sort of thing can be abused."
Yup. Governments always act politically, not matter what. Clinton was able to abuse over 900 FBI files to get "dirt" on his political opponents with impunity. They also tend to send the IRS after political opponents too.
I dont' want the government being able to tap, monitor, record every communication I have. They have no reason nor any RIGHT to, unless they have probable cause to suspect me of a crime.
What's next, requiring everyone to record all conversations with anyone and keep them for 7 years just in case the police or some politico may want it?
This is scary stuff. One way that you can be safer with your ISP is if they delete their logs, or not keep any. This places a tremendous cost burden on smaller ISP's as well, as storing all of this crap will take TERABYTES, or more.
The scariest thing is that good ol Algore is ideologically aligned with Blair.
There is a solution, however. Offshore and international companies can offer E-mail and web proxy services to residents of the UK that hide the IP addresses, and not keep logs.
If there are no logs, there is nothing to subpoena.
With the coming of DSL/Cable broadband, I think that there is going to be an explosion of popularity of running your own personal mail server, to bypass "1984" esque Carnivore and RIP. If you also use encryption, passing e-mail between two machines that are running their own POP and SMTP server, it effextively bypasses any monitoring that can be done at the ISP level, except probably logging the IP addresses.
My biggest question is this: Why do so-called "democratic" and "free" governments need this kind of draconian power to spy on citizens? Just as governments have secrets, the citizens have the right to KEEP secrets from the government.
I've not used Netscape as my primary browser since 1997. I had to switch to IE because Netscape 5 crashed seemingly EVERY TIME I hit a page with Java.
In late `99 I finally got into Linux. And used Netscape, briefly. Until Mozilla. I've used Mozilla as my main browser since M16. It's already better than Netscape, and the post-M18 nightlies are FAR better than the so-called "final" Netscape 6.
Mozilla is going to be the best browser on the market when it is final.
The article points out that Mozilla loads faster, and is more memory efficient than Netscape 6, despite the fact it's still a development release.
I run the Mozilla nightlies myself, and have found it to be by far the best Linux browser. I also use the Mozilla nightlies in Windows as well, because I personally prefer it to IE. I always DID like Netscape better than IE, but the horribly buggy 4.x series crashed so often (usually when you went to a page with Java) that I ended up changing to IE in Windows.
I think Mozilla is now well past Netscape, getting better, and in a few months will be EXACTLY what we want.
"Linux does boot on thinkpads silly. I have the Thinkpad A20p and its worked with all the dists. Just not FreeBSD. So do a little research before posting because you have no idea what your talking about..."
The article states that there is no support for Linux. This means if you buy one it may NOT boot. There are many similarities between the Linux and BSD kernels, in fact, they are more similar than different (as they are both Unix kernels), so hardware that can't handle one may not handle the other. Or handle it, but cause unforseen future problems.
This sucks. My next major purchase is going to be a notebook, and I love the quality of the Thinkpad.
I'm a service technician and have worked on virtually every major brand and most of their models of notebook, so I am offering an opinion based on professional experience. I know they are called "stinkpads", but compare the construction quality of a Thinkpad to most others and you may agree with me.
No Linux support, however, is an automatic no-no for me. ANYTHING I use has to run both Linux and `Doze. I don't see any reason why Linux wouldn't run on the Thinkpads, other than the obvious video/sound driver issues. Looks like I'll have to settle for my 2nd favorite, the Compaq Armada series. I don't know if Compaq officially supports Linux, but I've read many FAQ's on the web about success with Linux on them.
The biggest kicker about Notebooks without official Linux support is that you HAVE to pay the Windows Tax...
To be honest, I don't think there is any major branded notebook you can buy "naked" (M$ term). Of course, I have to have `Doze on my notebook, because I want to play games, so it won't bother me that much, but someone buying a notebook to ONLY run Linux shouldn't have to buy a piece of software they don't want or need.
"That a piece of music carries a watermark linking it to the person who purchased it raises certain important issues. For instance, certain problems arise when person X transfers his copy to person Y (permanently or otherwise). Imagine what happens if person Y pirates a copy of the song without person X's knowledge. Would person X be held responsable, given that X's identity is linked to the file? Companies seem to believe it's their right to track our every move, privacy be damned.
"
This is the whole point... The RIAA wants it to be impossible to legally transfer music between people. They HATE used CD stores (which is where I usually buy my music). They can't do much about it right now, because even Judge Kaplan isn't such a helpless drooler that he'd throw the book at someone for giving the original CD to someone.
When music starts being sold electronically, on the other hand, the RIAA can, with SDMI, control this.
I do not think there is much reason to panic, SDMI 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, whatever. It WILL be broken. And the more the RIAA delays in implementing SDMI the more entrenched MP3 becomes.
I really don't think SDMI has much of a chance in the marketplace anyway, it's going to go over like the RIAA is proposing everyone browse the web with their new protocal not compatible with HTTP.
And even IF SDMI couldn't be hacked (which it will be able to be), somewhere it has to produce AUDIO, which can be recorded.
Slashdot Mirror
"To be fair, is Microsoft is building its Windows for safety critical use? I don't know about CE, but I don't think their OSes are designed for that. Kinda seems like comparing apples to oranges...
Not that I believe an OS should be riddled with spurious "features"
While I agree that MS consumer OS's are not intended to run mission critical apps (like nuke plants, etc), nor their professional OS's for that matter, I don't believe that ANY company making a defective product deserves any more protection against disseminating that information than any other.
For one thing, there is the matter of the 1st amendment. Secondly, MS authored bug reports are not marketable in any way, unless they plan to charge to receive them. MS no more deserves copyright on publically released defect reports than do Ford, GM, or Chrysler. The same standard should apply.
"Furthermore, that this information is needed, and was being distributed specifically to forward the end of stopping illegal activities and protecting the people. As such it was in the best interest of the public that the information be distributed."
This is why the CPSC REQUIRES public domain safety bulletins on cars and other products. Why should Microsoft be entitled to keep control of their bug reports? After all, these reports are of interest to their customers and potential customers. And many M$ bugs are potentially dangerous (the I Love you virus, etc).
"But while I think it's fair to be worried about the DMCA and UCITA, this vanilla enforcement of copyrights by Microsoft, while draconian and unwise, shouldn't lead to paranoia and hysteria."
I think it's our right to be paranoid about it. Whenever someone is taking action to hide defects in a product, that should give you pause before buying it. The problem is that MS can get away with it because they have the monopoly on Windows type OS's. Yes, I primarily use Linux, but most people don't yet.
To go back to my car example: If Ford, in response to the Explorer/Firestone tire flap were to declare that all their defect bulletins are copyrighted, and can't be published anywhere except on a buried part of their website. And, let's assume Ford has a history of moving, removing, etc, information around their website to hide it.
I would certainly NOT buy another Ford automobile (which I'm predisposed to do after owning one for 7 years).
The problem is "consumers" are not as astute about this kind of thing as we are. And this action by MS will certainly slow down circulation of information on their bugs.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MS essentially tell SlashDot that having links to places that contained copyrighted information was the same as posting it?
/. to remove the plain text of their Keberos "enhancements" that were posted in the comments.
So... Maybe Microsoft bugs should just not be posted anywhere."
I am not sure on this one. I do remember that they tried to order
It's quite possible that MS could make that argument, as Slashdotter's FAVORITE judge, Kaplan of the DeCSS vs 2600 case, made publishing links to DeCSS illegal.
Another reason why that judge's insane and indefensible judgement needs to be appealed and reversed.
Without links there IS no web!
"If MS doesn't recant, here is my solution to this problem:
Stop vendor notification of MS Security holes."
You make an excellent and insightful point, but I think the gist of this action is that MS doesn't give a shit about bugs or bug reports. If they can stop people from KNOWING about bugs (and they are doing this by severely limiting and taking control of disseminating this information) then bugs aren't a problem.
MS doesn't want to know about bugs, and they don't want YOU to know. They especially don't want the average MIS manager (who are typically much less technically astute than those they manage) to know about bugs.
"Reducing reporting of bugs won't reduce bugs. Quite the opposite. The answer is to stop using software that not only sucks, but has a company intent on making the whole experience less enjoyable."
The reason for this action is obvious. Microsoft doesn't really care at ALL about bugs, or their effect on their customers. Why? Because they don't have to, they are a monopoly, there is no incentive or reason for them to produce a safe and defect-free product.
Microsoft doesn't want you to know there are bugs, just as any giant corporation (Ford/Firestone, et all) would rather hide the dirty laundry.
In fact, how many expensive Microsoft "Upgrades" have been mainly bug fixes? Windows 98, 98SE, and ME come to mind... All are essentially the SAME as Windows 95, only more stable (well, somewhat).
"If you don't follow the link immediately and save the content for some future day when you might need it, you may never see it again.
For vendor security bulletins to have any real meaning, you must have some degree of trust for the vendor. This is one more violation of that trust by Microsoft."
Microsoft has already proven that they can't be trusted. If they made cars the way they do software, thousands would be dying daily, and they would be able to keep the defect information copyrighted and proprietary.
Independant review of Microsoft is necessary in order to fairly evaluate the product. Publishing bug reports only on their website is unacceptable. Automobile safety defect reports are public domain and published everywhere.
Why is Microsoft entitled to keep their defect information copyrighted?
"I fail to see how the DMCA actually applies to this case at all. The DMCA (or at least the part of it that /. readers usually care about) forbids the circumvention of access control methods.
Microsoft is publishing its security bulletins in plaintext on a publicly-accessible web page. No access control. No DMCA implications."
This may be the next step though. They may take the bug bulletins private, even implementing some kind of very weak protection.
And yes, the DMCA can apply to this. Microsoft is now establishing copyright control on their bugs. Therefore, they could imvoke the DMCA on anyone, any site, that discloses, analyzes, comments on them, etc.
This is a scary precedent if allowed to stand. I think purchasers of defective products have a right to know what potentially harmful defects exist. Especially when your company's information could be hacked, stolen, destroyed.
Maybe it is time to start firing MIS managers for purchasing Microsoft...
Now Microsoft claims copyright on their BUG reports? How is this different from reports on car defects? Those reports are always published.
Now can Ford/Firestone, et all use the Microsoft method and bury their reports of defects under some obscure URL?
And yes, bugs in Microsoft software ARE safety threatening. How many of the most embarassing bugs in MS software have been gaping exploits that have allowed hackers in, and allowed new generations of viruses exploit MS software to transmit themselves worldwide, quickly?
If Microsoft made cars the hood would be welded shut so you can't look at the engine, and Consumer Reports would be put out of business because they wouldn't be allowed to publish recall notices.
I think the Consumer Products Safety Comission needs to look at this. Microsoft bugs and holes demonstrably threaten consumer safety, and should be published and public domain when they are discovered. You have a RIGHT to know that a product you bought is defective and potentially dangerous.
"This ignorance appears to cover a large number of US citizens, including those directly involved in law enforcment. How often has a US judge thrown out a case invalid due to the US constitution and jailed the prosecuter for contempt of court?"
Never. But then the judiciary is part of the power grab. Since the 70's, the federal courts have been in the business of making law, not in their Constitutional role of evaluating the constitutionality of laws.
What this all ties into is that the long distance companies have become obsolete. And probably were some time ago. They've been making extra profits by selling metered access to the long distance phone network rather than selling it flat rate.
The Internet proves that telcos can sell worldwide unmetered network access and still make tons of money. Why should government step in to gurantee the long distance voice carriers continued profits, when their business model is flawed and obsolete?
Competition with the internet is GOOD for the consumer. Long distance rates have plummeted in the last few years. Sooner or later, LD carriers are going to HAVE to offer unlimited LD service to compete. This is a GOOD THING, and the Internet proves this can be done and still make good money. Any government that seeks to prevent this, and act in favor of an obsolete industry that needs to be FORCED to evolve, to the disadvantage of it's citizens is unjust.
Why should any government agency regulate voice over IP? The justification for regulating TV and radio is because of the limited spectrum.
The internet does not have limited spectrum, it grows as needed.
There is no "right" to profit. Should the Feds have allowed the horse and buggy industry regulate the roads? Should the Feds have let the railroads regulate the airlines? Should the Feds have let the slide rule makers regulate the computer industry?
Any government that allows old technology to regulate new for the purpose of ARTIFICIALLY extending the life of an obsolete industry is going to become a technological backwater.
" The lack of respect for personal privacy remains a hole in the current US constitution's Bill of Rights. With information becoming a central plank of people's lives in a way never before seen, perhaps it's time an amendment to bring the 4th into the 21st Century."
This will never happen. The marketing industry and law enforcement's lobbys will never let this happen. The US government is rotten with corruption, hence laws like the DMCA passed unanimously in virtual secrecy.
It's better to argue that because of the 4th, 5th and 10th amendments, plus the 14th (right to not be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law) already cover government snooping, which they actually do.
What would be the point of amending the Constitution anyway, when the problem is the federal government since 1933 has basically ignored any Constitutional restriction on it's power?
"The right to keep and bear arms is the ultimate check and balance on government.
Wow, is this a flamebait or some sort of second-level joke ?"
No it isn't. If government has no reason to fear the citizenry it has no reason to be honest. This is clearly the REASON for the 2nd Amendment, if you read the Federalist Papers and other writings by the Founders, particularly Jefferson.
The battle of Lexington and Concord, and thus, the revolution, started when the British tried to seize the weapons of the Masachusetts Minutemen.
No government can stand against an outraged armed citizenry. Particularly since in the case of the US, the military would likely refuse to ever obey orders to open fire on US civillians. Hence the reason why the fascist types have been heavily arming and militarizing the police forces.
"So you're saying that when the police come and say "Can we have your PGP key please?" you should blow them away? And exactly how would that help?
"
I don't advocate violence, but an unjust law, particularly one that is immoral and illegal (as per the UK's membership in the EU, RIP contradicts it's charter) is no law at all.
So far the US and UK governments are set on violating their own laws to impliment spyware on citizens so...
If violence is what it takes, if a few government stormtroopers start biting the dust when they illegally invade a private residence, so be it.
My American ancestors once started killing British "law enforcement" for much the same reason.
Read the US Declaration of Independance. It WAS passed into law by the US Congress, and thus is law in the USA.
"What a load of proposterous bullshit. I'm sorry, but the typical Briton knows and trusts his fellow man? Bwahahahahahaa! "Britain has no need of written constitutions, freedom laws etc etc. In Britain, the institutions of government are trusted and respected, and can be relied upon to do their job in a fair manner." Oh yeah, and pigs will fly"
Blindly trusting government is as foolish as trusting a 16 year old with booze, your car, and your daughter.
In 1933, the Germans trusted Hitler, and look what it got them?
"But that's not very useful in the UK. Should 'they' wish to, they can demand your keys, and if you deny you have them/refuse you can go to jail (sentenced in a private court) for up to 5 years (I think it's 5). If you tell anyone about being asked for your keys, you can similarly be sent to jail."
This is what you get when you let them take away your guns. The right to keep and bear arms is the ultimate check and balance on government. After all, ALL government power, irregardless of how minir flows from the barrel of a gun. Violate any law, just or unjust, and government officials with guns will come and get you.
Same thing, the only power the CITIZENS actually have to make government obey it's own laws flows from the barrel of a gun. If the government doesn't fear it's citizens, then there is no need to obey the law, or even respect the outcome of an election. Something like this is happening in the USA now, and I think this kind of thing is going to be a growing trend in elections.
"And a written constitution is no guarantee against attacks on privacy without clauses protecting privacy and/or a seperation and definition of powers that would prevent government from doing that."
You are correct. The US Federal government has been blatantly disregarding the 9th and 10th amendments that limit the power of government since 1933.
How do they get away with this? Apathy and laziness. Only rarely do American public educational institutions actually teach non-Marxist civcs anymore. People are ignorant of the Constitution and the Feds take advantage of this, and for this reason, I don't think public education will EVER improve, they don't want it to. Ignorant people who don't know their rights are a lot easier to fool.
Also, there is a growing permanent underclass that depend on government, and vote for the candidates that will give them the most "bread and circuses".
"Interestingly, the US constitution, probably the best known of the written constitutions that has a bill of rights written into it, has no direct, blanket, protection of privacy within it, beyond basic protections against unreasonable searches, which is probably why the US government feels it can get away with systems like Carnivore."
Actually, it IS there. It's the 10th Amendment that forbids the Federal Government (and that includes the FBI, CIA, BATF, Janet Reno, et all) from excercising any power not SPECIFICALLY granted to it in the Constitution.
Also, the 4th Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant, and the 5th Amendment which grants the right against self incrimination would seem to make any such systematic wiretapping of e-mail illegal.
The Founders couldn't forsee a time where technology would enable the types of searches and seizures that can happen today, but these protections ARE there. It's just that our ever more corrupt and self-serving government won't obey it, because We, the People have become too ignorant or dependant to make them.
" the Clinton administration trashing of people's reputations using 'confidential' government records as prime evidence of just how this sort of thing can be abused."
Yup. Governments always act politically, not matter what. Clinton was able to abuse over 900 FBI files to get "dirt" on his political opponents with impunity. They also tend to send the IRS after political opponents too.
I dont' want the government being able to tap, monitor, record every communication I have. They have no reason nor any RIGHT to, unless they have probable cause to suspect me of a crime.
What's next, requiring everyone to record all conversations with anyone and keep them for 7 years just in case the police or some politico may want it?
This proposal is tantamount to the same thing.
This is scary stuff. One way that you can be safer with your ISP is if they delete their logs, or not keep any. This places a tremendous cost burden on smaller ISP's as well, as storing all of this crap will take TERABYTES, or more.
The scariest thing is that good ol Algore is ideologically aligned with Blair.
There is a solution, however. Offshore and international companies can offer E-mail and web proxy services to residents of the UK that hide the IP addresses, and not keep logs.
If there are no logs, there is nothing to subpoena.
With the coming of DSL/Cable broadband, I think that there is going to be an explosion of popularity of running your own personal mail server, to bypass "1984" esque Carnivore and RIP. If you also use encryption, passing e-mail between two machines that are running their own POP and SMTP server, it effextively bypasses any monitoring that can be done at the ISP level, except probably logging the IP addresses.
My biggest question is this: Why do so-called "democratic" and "free" governments need this kind of draconian power to spy on citizens? Just as governments have secrets, the citizens have the right to KEEP secrets from the government.
I've not used Netscape as my primary browser since 1997. I had to switch to IE because Netscape 5 crashed seemingly EVERY TIME I hit a page with Java.
In late `99 I finally got into Linux. And used Netscape, briefly. Until Mozilla. I've used Mozilla as my main browser since M16. It's already better than Netscape, and the post-M18 nightlies are FAR better than the so-called "final" Netscape 6.
Mozilla is going to be the best browser on the market when it is final.
The article points out that Mozilla loads faster, and is more memory efficient than Netscape 6, despite the fact it's still a development release.
I run the Mozilla nightlies myself, and have found it to be by far the best Linux browser. I also use the Mozilla nightlies in Windows as well, because I personally prefer it to IE. I always DID like Netscape better than IE, but the horribly buggy 4.x series crashed so often (usually when you went to a page with Java) that I ended up changing to IE in Windows.
I think Mozilla is now well past Netscape, getting better, and in a few months will be EXACTLY what we want.
"Linux does boot on thinkpads silly. I have the Thinkpad A20p and its worked with all the dists. Just not FreeBSD. So do a little research before posting because you have no idea what your talking about..."
The article states that there is no support for Linux. This means if you buy one it may NOT boot. There are many similarities between the Linux and BSD kernels, in fact, they are more similar than different (as they are both Unix kernels), so hardware that can't handle one may not handle the other. Or handle it, but cause unforseen future problems.
This sucks. My next major purchase is going to be a notebook, and I love the quality of the Thinkpad.
I'm a service technician and have worked on virtually every major brand and most of their models of notebook, so I am offering an opinion based on professional experience. I know they are called "stinkpads", but compare the construction quality of a Thinkpad to most others and you may agree with me.
No Linux support, however, is an automatic no-no for me. ANYTHING I use has to run both Linux and `Doze. I don't see any reason why Linux wouldn't run on the Thinkpads, other than the obvious video/sound driver issues. Looks like I'll have to settle for my 2nd favorite, the Compaq Armada series. I don't know if Compaq officially supports Linux, but I've read many FAQ's on the web about success with Linux on them.
The biggest kicker about Notebooks without official Linux support is that you HAVE to pay the Windows Tax...
To be honest, I don't think there is any major branded notebook you can buy "naked" (M$ term). Of course, I have to have `Doze on my notebook, because I want to play games, so it won't bother me that much, but someone buying a notebook to ONLY run Linux shouldn't have to buy a piece of software they don't want or need.
"That a piece of music carries a watermark linking it to the person who purchased it raises certain important issues. For instance, certain problems arise when person X transfers his copy to person Y (permanently or otherwise). Imagine what happens if person Y pirates a copy of the song without person X's knowledge. Would person X be held responsable, given that X's identity is linked to the file? Companies seem to believe it's their right to track our every move, privacy be damned.
"
This is the whole point... The RIAA wants it to be impossible to legally transfer music between people. They HATE used CD stores (which is where I usually buy my music). They can't do much about it right now, because even Judge Kaplan isn't such a helpless drooler that he'd throw the book at someone for giving the original CD to someone.
When music starts being sold electronically, on the other hand, the RIAA can, with SDMI, control this.
I do not think there is much reason to panic, SDMI 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, whatever. It WILL be broken. And the more the RIAA delays in implementing SDMI the more entrenched MP3 becomes.
I really don't think SDMI has much of a chance in the marketplace anyway, it's going to go over like the RIAA is proposing everyone browse the web with their new protocal not compatible with HTTP.
And even IF SDMI couldn't be hacked (which it will be able to be), somewhere it has to produce AUDIO, which can be recorded.