No. It is not acceptable to kill all men in trenchcoats on sight. The ramifications of that are clearly over the border of common sense.
However, if the FBI/whomever knew that a bomb was expected to be placed in location X, by two men that look like (insert description here>), at a certain time, they could stake out the place, attempt to apprehend the men (if appropriate warrants had been issued), and, if after all that, the men pulled out shotguns, the police would be justified in shooting them.
(sarcasm)If all people were dead, there would be no crimes at all. Isn't that the perfect solution?(/sarcasm)
And, you'd be surprised how many criminals DO use the net to plan their crimes...
I don't know much on RIP, but as for *nivore, the access to the data is not unlimited. The collection is only enabled on a certain person for a certain period of time. For instance, if a review of the surveillee's phone records (legal with appropriate court orders) shows that they call "Joe's ISP" a whole lot, the *nivore system could be brought to "Joe"'s server room and enabled with a filter for "possiblebadguy@joesisp.com". Again, this would only be for a specific time period, after which it would be removed, unless the court order is extended.
Yes, the possible misuse of Carnivore is scary. However, with the appropriate review (not necessarily full-disclosure), it can be a great help.
The TLA's have other ways to determine what they feel people are up to. Just because you use GPG does not mean you are a criminal. (I use it quite often, in fact.) HOWEVER, if you e-mail back and forth often to persons known to participate in illegal acts, those people are currently known to be planning a criminal act (info acquired from HUMINT - Human Intelligence (real spy stuff) - sources), then they might consider going through the motions of obtaining a legal order to tap your e-mail.
As Post #27 said, its just a new way to do an old thing...
Here's my thoughts on the whole Carnivore situation...
The FBI has retained the right to perform legal wiretaps on telephones (old-school communications device) for years. They have specific guidelines that they must follow in order to set them, including a signed order from a judge.
Today, we obviously rely more on e-mail (new-school communications device). Does this give us a license to use this new device for whatever crimimal acts we want? If I want to plot a kidnapping/assination/kiddie porn ring (NOTE: I don't...), should I have the unrestricted freedom to make all of my plans online? If the FBI got wind that a crime ring was planning to kidnap, rape, and exploit YOUR wife/son/daughter/sister/brother/etc. by planning the dispicable act entirely through e-mail, would you not want to have some means to protect your loved ones? The FBI would still need to obtain the appropriate warrants to place the tap device on the criminal's ISP (BTW - these orders are time sensitive - the [whatever]ivore device can only be on the system for a specific period of time), and collect the information required to perform their mission.
OTOH, if the criminals were solely using the telephone to plot, would you have a different view or expectation as to their capture?
I'm not saying that the FBI (or any governmental agency, for that matter) should have unrestricted access to our personal lives - that is CLEARLY a breach of the law. However, the intelligence oversight in this country is EXTREMELY restrictive, and is designed to protect U.S. citizens. In fact, the U.S. cannot collect information on its citizens abroad, and cannot collect information on non-citizens while they are within the borders of the US. So if Usama Bin Laden crosses the border at Niagara Falls, NY (lax border, for the most part), the FBI/CIA/whomever CANNOT place a wiretap on his hotel phone without a legal warrant to do so.
I still think that a review of Carnivore is a good idea, but if looking at it's algorithms yielded information as to how to thwart it's capabilities, should that kind of information be out in the public? Would you be happy if, in the aforementioned scenario where your loved one is in danger, the criminals knew how to thwart the system, rendering the FBI's protection of your family useless?
Just some thoughts... I'm not fully a proponent of government, but I think that there are some things best left out of the public eye.
I got two of them and gave them two different false addresses. Maybe not the most up-and-up way to get around their supposedly-allowed "recall", but I don't feel that their covert data collection is too legit wither. (Yeah, I know it's buried in their FAQ/legalese, but that's just a cheap shot on the consumer. I want big freakin' letters that say "we give you this to track your habits." Yeah.... sure....).
The way I see it, they'll be trying to recoup losses againt non-existant persons. That and without installing the software/breaking the cd seal, I'm not subject to the EULA. :P
There might be a way to use a free DNS registrar for your problem. You use them to change your MX record to another server. If that server is a friend with DSL or another access method that permits servers, you could create the same named accounts and pop it off or use another access method.
Kind of a kluge, but I think it's about the only way to preserve your existing e-mail addresses.
Actually, a lot of the new Kodak's do use FireWire for offloads. I worked in a photography shop (taking pictures - not developing them), and all of our high-end cameras used it.
USB is still nice, though - I don't think that small-storage devices, like my Rio500 (arguable, tho), or straight comm devices, like a UPS fit into the 1394 arena. I LOVE the idea of firewire for DV and the like, but it seems to be overkill for the small-bandwidth requirements.
My preference: No more IDE, SCSI, floppies, or old-fashioned serial or parallel ports. Legacy free means IEEE-1394 for the large transfer devices, USB for the small ones, and CD-ROM based everything (i.e. no more floppies). We'll see, though!
I purhcased a Kodak DC-260 (not the pro series... yet!) and remember seeing a "belt-pack" style device that would pull your images from the camera and store them on its own media until loading to the PC. I don't have the link any more, but it might be an answer to your needs.
If not (or your connection doesn't mesh with the belt-pack's), what about just taking a laptop with a JAZ-2 drive on it? At 4-8Mb per image, that should do fine for 128-246 shots per cartrige, with the obvious option to add more cartriges. Since the JAZ drive uses SCSI (I used the Adaptec Slim-SCSI with a JAZ-1 for years with no problems), you could add the camera to the SCSI chain, plug in the PCMCIA card, offload the images, eject the card, and keep shooting. Send the laptop to power-save mode until you need it again. (If there is 12VDC power in the chopper, use a cigarette lighter adapter to power it...)
Also, you could just use the HDD in the laptop, but I've found that JAZ storage is LOTS cheaper than 18Gb laptop drives.
Let us know what you end up doing - it's a very interesting idea!!!
Can I have a helicopter ride?;)
Point taken. I guess that I was not referring to those who petition the government responsibly, but those who make it their plight to find fault with EVERYTHING that is a part of the government. There is nothing wrong with actively taking part in a cause. I, for one, have very strong feelings on many topics, such as the DeCSS issue.
I'd also add something to your position: the citizens have a RESPONSIBILITY to be participants in their governments. There are countless lawful ways to make your feelings known to your congressional representatives and other elected officials. Making a concerted effort to get arrested, provoke police officers, and make ones self out to look suspicious is not one of them.
Possibly, but think of it from their end:
- Many companies are known today for software vaporware
- Hardware vaporware is even worse - how many ideas are shelved for the next 5 years until [ quantum computing | 100Tb fiber for all | etc ] are implemented?
They want to be sure that they can all but flood the market with a fully-functional product. If they are tied up in litigation, their sales will suffer; hence the IBM tie. Transmeta clearly has cornered the market on the Intel-killer, so they want to be able to keep up with the (assumedly) mega-high demand that will come.
Intel compatability will be around for a long time - too much rides on it to allow a complete paradigm shift. Transmeta's functionality will be exactly what people need for webpad-like devices. (The old "what you want cause it's cool" vs. "what you need to to the job" argument. Heck, I still have a P-100 serving web pages like a fiend and firewalling at the same time!)
I personally think that when Crusoe hits the market, it will be a goodthing(tm), as long as they can follow through on it's availabiltity.
Not entirely true. If you got his personal information, it would be through illicit sources, and therefore, your collection methods would be an offense for which you are liable. on the other hand, if you wrote a random number generator that spit out visa numbers, and one of them happened to be Mr. Touretzky's, printed that on a shirt, you would be (i think) legal. the argument lies in that DeCSS code was created by a kid in sweden. He did not break into MPAA's secret underground lair (pinky to mouth), steal their code, and publish it.
I had the opportunity to work with both Dr. Greg White ("USAFA Cadet Hacking") and Mr. Dave DiCenso ("Citizen Hacker") while at school. They are both excellent briefers, and should have a LOT of good information to present. (Disclaimer: I'm at work now, and can't get the RealVideo stream... Gotta get home to see it! So I haven't had a chance to see the videos yet.) I talked with Dr. White on the case he's speaking about a few weeks ago, and he presents his arguments from a very neutral perspective. Don't think that because he used to work for "they"/"the man"/etc, that he's slanted towards their perspective. Anyone who might be in a position to legally confront a cracking suspect (in ANY capacity) should definitely check out his briefing. Mr. DiCenso's topic should also be great. He's a former law instructor (and a lawyer), and taught one of the first-ever CyberLaw courses. If you are in the least bit interested in security/hacking/cracking and the social/legal/ethical implications of them, you should check his section out. And yes, I do feel pretty damn cool that I have been able to work with these cool people... I guess I'm human after all!
How would it be handled with all of those failed/aborted downloads? If it's 10 cents per track, and I get 65% of the track, do I get charged 6.5 cents?? Also, how would they handle the initial population of files? If I use the software, and offer my collection of mp3's (ripped from discs I own), do the copyright holders receive a cut of money that others pay to get my stuff? Do I get anything like credit towards use of the service? I admit, I haven't delved too deep into their (really, really thin) page, but does the RIAA give their servers all of the files to offer? Good idea - definitely more palatable to the monopolists than Napster, but it seems like there are a lot of potential shortfalls.... I'm hopeful, though!
Here is the response I just sent to "info@ewatch.com" - a cursory look over their site did not yield any other e-mail address...
To Whom It May Concern:
I read about your service on a computer-centric news site (which, I'm sure you know about) called "slashdot" (http://slashdot.org) today. The services you offer are deeply troubling to me.
Are you aware of the Constitutional RIGHT granted to all Americans called "FREE SPEECH?" If I disagree with one of your clients' serivces/views (or YOUR company's services, for that matter), I am entitled to voice them in whatever public forum I desire. As long as I'm not disagreeing with the AUP (acceptable use policy) of the posting medium, there is no legal basis to remove my words without my permission. You have no more right to do what you are doing on the internet than you have to "ask" (or force, depending on perspective) a publisher to cease publication of a paper book because it goes against the views of your client. Are you going to censor "Consumer Reports" because they give accurate views on products that don't perform like they advertise?
I can see the logic behind informing a company about what is out there about them - knowing the dissent can be as useful - or more so - as the congratulations. However "targeting cyber reeducation" and actually pulling the offending information from web sites is purely acinine. You step FAR over the line of decency.
It's a shame that someone like can cajole the financial backing required to get an operation off the ground. I'll be waiting until something you try to pull gets you landed in a courtroom to defend your anti-free speech actions. The internet is a great thing - it gives power to the normally voiceless consumers in a big business-dominated world. What motivation will there be to offer good customer service if there is only "shiny happy" representation of that company's products/services on the net?
I just checked over at register.com, and ewatchsucks.[com|net|org|ws] are still available. If I weren't a poor-assed-bastard, I'd get all 4 of them! "But, it's a site about "ewwwww... atch sucks!"
This is disturbing. Let's see if they get me: HEY E-WATCH, I THINK YOUR COMPANY IS DUMB. I'M GOING TO TELL ALL MY FRIENDS AND ALL THEIR FRIENDS. COME AND GET ME!
Take a look at Alpine's solution to the "attractive nuicanse" (sp?) problem: IN-DASH MOTORIZED/HIDDEN DISPLAY!! This is definitely my choice. They have a kick-ass GPS system that ties into the display as well.
Slashdot Mirror
No. It is not acceptable to kill all men in trenchcoats on sight. The ramifications of that are clearly over the border of common sense.
However, if the FBI/whomever knew that a bomb was expected to be placed in location X, by two men that look like (insert description here>), at a certain time, they could stake out the place, attempt to apprehend the men (if appropriate warrants had been issued), and, if after all that, the men pulled out shotguns, the police would be justified in shooting them.
(sarcasm)If all people were dead, there would be no crimes at all. Isn't that the perfect solution?(/sarcasm) And, you'd be surprised how many criminals DO use the net to plan their crimes...
I don't know much on RIP, but as for *nivore, the access to the data is not unlimited. The collection is only enabled on a certain person for a certain period of time. For instance, if a review of the surveillee's phone records (legal with appropriate court orders) shows that they call "Joe's ISP" a whole lot, the *nivore system could be brought to "Joe"'s server room and enabled with a filter for "possiblebadguy@joesisp.com". Again, this would only be for a specific time period, after which it would be removed, unless the court order is extended.
Yes, the possible misuse of Carnivore is scary. However, with the appropriate review (not necessarily full-disclosure), it can be a great help.
The TLA's have other ways to determine what they feel people are up to. Just because you use GPG does not mean you are a criminal. (I use it quite often, in fact.) HOWEVER, if you e-mail back and forth often to persons known to participate in illegal acts, those people are currently known to be planning a criminal act (info acquired from HUMINT - Human Intelligence (real spy stuff) - sources), then they might consider going through the motions of obtaining a legal order to tap your e-mail.
As Post #27 said, its just a new way to do an old thing...
Here's my thoughts on the whole Carnivore situation...
The FBI has retained the right to perform legal wiretaps on telephones (old-school communications device) for years. They have specific guidelines that they must follow in order to set them, including a signed order from a judge.
Today, we obviously rely more on e-mail (new-school communications device). Does this give us a license to use this new device for whatever crimimal acts we want? If I want to plot a kidnapping/assination/kiddie porn ring (NOTE: I don't...), should I have the unrestricted freedom to make all of my plans online? If the FBI got wind that a crime ring was planning to kidnap, rape, and exploit YOUR wife/son/daughter/sister/brother/etc. by planning the dispicable act entirely through e-mail, would you not want to have some means to protect your loved ones? The FBI would still need to obtain the appropriate warrants to place the tap device on the criminal's ISP (BTW - these orders are time sensitive - the [whatever]ivore device can only be on the system for a specific period of time), and collect the information required to perform their mission.
OTOH, if the criminals were solely using the telephone to plot, would you have a different view or expectation as to their capture?
I'm not saying that the FBI (or any governmental agency, for that matter) should have unrestricted access to our personal lives - that is CLEARLY a breach of the law. However, the intelligence oversight in this country is EXTREMELY restrictive, and is designed to protect U.S. citizens. In fact, the U.S. cannot collect information on its citizens abroad, and cannot collect information on non-citizens while they are within the borders of the US. So if Usama Bin Laden crosses the border at Niagara Falls, NY (lax border, for the most part), the FBI/CIA/whomever CANNOT place a wiretap on his hotel phone without a legal warrant to do so.
I still think that a review of Carnivore is a good idea, but if looking at it's algorithms yielded information as to how to thwart it's capabilities, should that kind of information be out in the public? Would you be happy if, in the aforementioned scenario where your loved one is in danger, the criminals knew how to thwart the system, rendering the FBI's protection of your family useless?
Just some thoughts... I'm not fully a proponent of government, but I think that there are some things best left out of the public eye.
I got two of them and gave them two different false addresses. Maybe not the most up-and-up way to get around their supposedly-allowed "recall", but I don't feel that their covert data collection is too legit wither. (Yeah, I know it's buried in their FAQ/legalese, but that's just a cheap shot on the consumer. I want big freakin' letters that say "we give you this to track your habits." Yeah.... sure....).
:P
The way I see it, they'll be trying to recoup losses againt non-existant persons. That and without installing the software/breaking the cd seal, I'm not subject to the EULA.
There might be a way to use a free DNS registrar for your problem. You use them to change your MX record to another server. If that server is a friend with DSL or another access method that permits servers, you could create the same named accounts and pop it off or use another access method.
Kind of a kluge, but I think it's about the only way to preserve your existing e-mail addresses.
Actually, a lot of the new Kodak's do use FireWire for offloads. I worked in a photography shop (taking pictures - not developing them), and all of our high-end cameras used it.
USB is still nice, though - I don't think that small-storage devices, like my Rio500 (arguable, tho), or straight comm devices, like a UPS fit into the 1394 arena. I LOVE the idea of firewire for DV and the like, but it seems to be overkill for the small-bandwidth requirements.
My preference: No more IDE, SCSI, floppies, or old-fashioned serial or parallel ports. Legacy free means IEEE-1394 for the large transfer devices, USB for the small ones, and CD-ROM based everything (i.e. no more floppies). We'll see, though!
I purhcased a Kodak DC-260 (not the pro series... yet!) and remember seeing a "belt-pack" style device that would pull your images from the camera and store them on its own media until loading to the PC. I don't have the link any more, but it might be an answer to your needs. ;)
If not (or your connection doesn't mesh with the belt-pack's), what about just taking a laptop with a JAZ-2 drive on it? At 4-8Mb per image, that should do fine for 128-246 shots per cartrige, with the obvious option to add more cartriges. Since the JAZ drive uses SCSI (I used the Adaptec Slim-SCSI with a JAZ-1 for years with no problems), you could add the camera to the SCSI chain, plug in the PCMCIA card, offload the images, eject the card, and keep shooting. Send the laptop to power-save mode until you need it again. (If there is 12VDC power in the chopper, use a cigarette lighter adapter to power it...)
Also, you could just use the HDD in the laptop, but I've found that JAZ storage is LOTS cheaper than 18Gb laptop drives.
Let us know what you end up doing - it's a very interesting idea!!!
Can I have a helicopter ride?
Point taken. I guess that I was not referring to those who petition the government responsibly, but those who make it their plight to find fault with EVERYTHING that is a part of the government. There is nothing wrong with actively taking part in a cause. I, for one, have very strong feelings on many topics, such as the DeCSS issue.
I'd also add something to your position: the citizens have a RESPONSIBILITY to be participants in their governments. There are countless lawful ways to make your feelings known to your congressional representatives and other elected officials. Making a concerted effort to get arrested, provoke police officers, and make ones self out to look suspicious is not one of them.
Possibly, but think of it from their end:
- Many companies are known today for software vaporware
- Hardware vaporware is even worse - how many ideas are shelved for the next 5 years until [ quantum computing | 100Tb fiber for all | etc ] are implemented?
They want to be sure that they can all but flood the market with a fully-functional product. If they are tied up in litigation, their sales will suffer; hence the IBM tie. Transmeta clearly has cornered the market on the Intel-killer, so they want to be able to keep up with the (assumedly) mega-high demand that will come.
Intel compatability will be around for a long time - too much rides on it to allow a complete paradigm shift. Transmeta's functionality will be exactly what people need for webpad-like devices. (The old "what you want cause it's cool" vs. "what you need to to the job" argument. Heck, I still have a P-100 serving web pages like a fiend and firewalling at the same time!)
I personally think that when Crusoe hits the market, it will be a goodthing(tm), as long as they can follow through on it's availabiltity.
Not entirely true. If you got his personal information, it would be through illicit sources, and therefore, your collection methods would be an offense for which you are liable.
on the other hand, if you wrote a random number generator that spit out visa numbers, and one of them happened to be Mr. Touretzky's, printed that on a shirt, you would be (i think) legal.
the argument lies in that DeCSS code was created by a kid in sweden. He did not break into MPAA's secret underground lair (pinky to mouth), steal their code, and publish it.
True, but most congressmen (and other governmental figures, for that matter) are lawyers. ('cept that Jesse Ventura ;)
I had the opportunity to work with both Dr. Greg White ("USAFA Cadet Hacking") and Mr. Dave DiCenso ("Citizen Hacker") while at school. They are both excellent briefers, and should have a LOT of good information to present. (Disclaimer: I'm at work now, and can't get the RealVideo stream... Gotta get home to see it! So I haven't had a chance to see the videos yet.) I talked with Dr. White on the case he's speaking about a few weeks ago, and he presents his arguments from a very neutral perspective. Don't think that because he used to work for "they"/"the man"/etc, that he's slanted towards their perspective. Anyone who might be in a position to legally confront a cracking suspect (in ANY capacity) should definitely check out his briefing.
Mr. DiCenso's topic should also be great. He's a former law instructor (and a lawyer), and taught one of the first-ever CyberLaw courses. If you are in the least bit interested in security/hacking/cracking and the social/legal/ethical implications of them, you should check his section out.
And yes, I do feel pretty damn cool that I have been able to work with these cool people... I guess I'm human after all!
How would it be handled with all of those failed/aborted downloads? If it's 10 cents per track, and I get 65% of the track, do I get charged 6.5 cents??
Also, how would they handle the initial population of files? If I use the software, and offer my collection of mp3's (ripped from discs I own), do the copyright holders receive a cut of money that others pay to get my stuff? Do I get anything like credit towards use of the service?
I admit, I haven't delved too deep into their (really, really thin) page, but does the RIAA give their servers all of the files to offer?
Good idea - definitely more palatable to the monopolists than Napster, but it seems like there are a lot of potential shortfalls.... I'm hopeful, though!
I just checked over at register.com, and ewatchsucks.[com|net|org|ws] are still available. If I weren't a poor-assed-bastard, I'd get all 4 of them!
"But, it's a site about "ewwwww... atch sucks!"
This is disturbing. Let's see if they get me:
HEY E-WATCH, I THINK YOUR COMPANY IS DUMB. I'M GOING TO TELL ALL MY FRIENDS AND ALL THEIR FRIENDS. COME AND GET ME!
Take a look at Alpine's solution to the "attractive nuicanse" (sp?) problem: IN-DASH MOTORIZED/HIDDEN DISPLAY!! This is definitely my choice. They have a kick-ass GPS system that ties into the display as well.