It is not surprising that Sen Wyden, a member of the Bike Lock Party, wants to ban Free Speech on the basis of "common decency".
No doubt, Wyden imagines that it will be someone like him and not someone like President Trump that gets to decide what constitutes "common decency" and hence what gets banned in practice. But to imagine President Trump making such decisions, requires thought. And members of the Bike Lock Party don't think, they only emote.
And what do they emote about: Who to hit over the head with Bike Locks.
People are thinking about one time pads in the wrong way. OTPs should be thought of not as a crypto algorithm, but rather as a time machine!
Suppose that that Bob and Alice have a secure channel now, that they will not have in the future. They will have an insecure channel in the future. A OTP allows them to exchange messages now, that have not been written yet! A OTP is a message time machine. It allows you to securely exchange a message now, that you intend to write in the future.
After they exchange a OTP, if either Bob or Allice gets hacked, so that the OTP is surreptitiously exposed, then that is equivalent to exposing a message that has not been written yet.
The proper way to think about OTP is not as a crypto algorithm, but rather as a message time machine.
I do not like Voyeurs but this could set a precedent that would be used against everyone
Some one can make a lot of money by setting up an secret sharing service so that you do not actually know your password.
The company would be owned and operated offshore in many countries some of which will not honor US warrants.
When you start the service a strong password would be setup using the technique of cryptographic secret sharing, so that the password is split on servers in many countries many of which do not honor US warrants.
You also have a authentication password totally controlled by you that proves that you are you.
When you want to use your password, you send a authenticated message to the servers, and your password is reassembled from the parts using encrypted communications by a computer program, so that you never see the password. You could have redundancy so that sabotage at one server would not cause it to break. You could set it up so that it takes M out of N servers to cooperate to get your password, where M is less than N. You could also mix in yourself in the sharing algorithm so that you have one small piece of the password so that the servers can not reconstruct the real password without your help. But your piece would not be enough to reconstruct the real password. Thus, the servers could not pretend to do something without your consent.
When you are detained, your lawyer causes a delay. (Any Lawyer who can not cause a delay is incompetent.) During the delay, a canary tells the servers that you are being coerced, and the servers stop cooperating until you can prove that you are free again.
Use defensive formulation! You bought the service because you were afraid of being coerced by criminals and foreign governments, not because you wanted to evade US laws!
This is Obama's way of telling Hillary she is under the bus.
Obama does not care about Snowen. By this time, Obama has probably bought the *IA's line that Snowden is the anti-christ, that should be shot on sight. Under normal circumstances, he would just say that he will not pardon Snowden because Snowden is bad.
Also, Obama has competent legal help, as well as being a lawyer himself. He knows he can pardon Snowden if he wants to. But the situation visa-vie Snowden allows Obama to state a principle that disallows a pardon for Hilary, without referring to Hilary or even admitting that he knows it might apply to Hilary.
This is a very elegant way to throw Hilary under the bus, without even mentioning she might exist. He can say to Hilary supporters when the question inevitably comes up "I must apply my principles without fear of favor."
Whatever you think about Obama you have to admit that he is a very smart fellow.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures
Nowhere does it say I have to rely on a governmental promise not to do an unreasonable search, it says I have a right to secure myself against such a search.
The proposal goes against the plain meaning of the fourth.
The GPL allows you to create modified version of the program without releasing the source, so long as you don't distribute. If they keep all the software inside the Russian government, they haven't distributed. So I don't think this can be called a rip-off.
Because of the planet's eccentric orbit and long period, it is unlikely that it clears its orbit. That is right a planet the size of Neptune, and its a dwarf planet.
This is what happens when you write naming conventions in order to "get" a planet for political reasons!
Right, because people of good character can never be coerced into becoming bad actors. Right. I guess, if you find someone with no remaining living relatives or friends and no addictions or unmet needs, you'll have found the one person in the world nobody can leverage in any way. Good luck with that.
Never is not available as an option. Like has there never been a failure of the legal system. Good character does not have to be perfect, it only has to be more reliable than the legal system. To increase reliability increase the number of signers of known good character required.
So you just choose people of good character to do your signing for you. As government moves to outlaw good character by forcing everyone to be a stooge for the government, it means the rule of law will no longer be an effective way to enforce contracts. In such an environment, ancient concepts like character and reputation become even more important.
Could apple contract with a foreign person, outside the jurisdiction of any U.S. Court, to do all the key signing that apple currently does? The sub-contractor would work according to a contractually specified algorithm, that basically says to signs what apple wants it to sign, but refuses to sign anything coerced. The sub-contractor would store the signing key outside the jurisdiction of any US court. If this scheme is ruled illegal and apple is pushed to the wall, apple could move all of itself offshore, and the Justice department could take responsibility for the resulting job loss.
Everything you do while working as a reporter for the New York Times is Commercial Speech? You clearly, do not know what you are talking about.
If it is non-political in nature yes. Because free speech is really about Politically based speech, not just any and all speech.
Great, your brilliance has revealed that first amendment protection for literary and religious speech does not exist!
Nobody knew that before.
Riddle me this. If I write a script, and my boss
Hey idiot, the first amendment restricts the government and not your f*cking boss. You have once again proved that you do not know what you are talking about.
The first amendment applies to many aspects of civil society not just political speech, such as religion, taste, literature, philosophy. This has been settled law for as long as anyone can remember.
The speech at issue here, the compelled speech, will not make Apple a profit. See the rest of my argument. It therefore is not commercial speech, therefore your argument collapses.
Source code is speech. Compelling someone to create or modify source is compelling speech.
The government is not going to pay the true cost of this operation. Suppose the developer ordered to create this code quits instead, as indeed he must do, to protect his personal integrity. Yes developers can be bought on the market but it takes months to years to bring a developer up to speed on a particular piece of software. This can costs millions. I doubt the government will pay the true cost for this.
This will destroy the trust enjoyed by apple and its OS. The value of this asset can not be estimated. "He who robs my purse steals trash." The government does not intend to pay for this.
By Citizens United, corporations have rights. Therefore anything they do to Apple they can do to you. The government will be able to destroy the honor of any individual with integrity, with a simple court order, turning her into a government fink.
Slashdot Mirror
But it would be better than what we have now!
Is this some kind of dig against Jordon Peterson?
We need to develop an alternative to youtube without the censorship.
No doubt, Wyden imagines that it will be someone like him and not someone like President Trump that gets to decide what constitutes "common decency" and hence what gets banned in practice. But to imagine President Trump making such decisions, requires thought. And members of the Bike Lock Party don't think, they only emote.
And what do they emote about: Who to hit over the head with Bike Locks.
I hope this was offensive enough for you.
It was not the Pythagorean Theorem till someone proved it.
Is this the Solarmanite described in Plan Nine from Outer space?
This is a result of occult training in a past life.
Suppose that that Bob and Alice have a secure channel now, that they will not have in the future. They will have an insecure channel in the future. A OTP allows them to exchange messages now, that have not been written yet! A OTP is a message time machine. It allows you to securely exchange a message now, that you intend to write in the future.
After they exchange a OTP, if either Bob or Allice gets hacked, so that the OTP is surreptitiously exposed, then that is equivalent to exposing a message that has not been written yet.
The proper way to think about OTP is not as a crypto algorithm, but rather as a message time machine.
Some one can make a lot of money by setting up an secret sharing service so that you do not actually know your password.
The company would be owned and operated offshore in many countries some of which will not honor US warrants.
When you start the service a strong password would be setup using the technique of cryptographic secret sharing, so that the password is split on servers in many countries many of which do not honor US warrants.
You also have a authentication password totally controlled by you that proves that you are you.
When you want to use your password, you send a authenticated message to the servers, and your password is reassembled from the parts using encrypted communications by a computer program, so that you never see the password. You could have redundancy so that sabotage at one server would not cause it to break. You could set it up so that it takes M out of N servers to cooperate to get your password, where M is less than N. You could also mix in yourself in the sharing algorithm so that you have one small piece of the password so that the servers can not reconstruct the real password without your help. But your piece would not be enough to reconstruct the real password. Thus, the servers could not pretend to do something without your consent.
When you are detained, your lawyer causes a delay. (Any Lawyer who can not cause a delay is incompetent.) During the delay, a canary tells the servers that you are being coerced, and the servers stop cooperating until you can prove that you are free again.
Use defensive formulation! You bought the service because you were afraid of being coerced by criminals and foreign governments, not because you wanted to evade US laws!
In any case you never had the password.
Obama does not care about Snowen. By this time, Obama has probably bought the *IA's line that Snowden is the anti-christ, that should be shot on sight. Under normal circumstances, he would just say that he will not pardon Snowden because Snowden is bad.
Also, Obama has competent legal help, as well as being a lawyer himself. He knows he can pardon Snowden if he wants to. But the situation visa-vie Snowden allows Obama to state a principle that disallows a pardon for Hilary, without referring to Hilary or even admitting that he knows it might apply to Hilary.
This is a very elegant way to throw Hilary under the bus, without even mentioning she might exist. He can say to Hilary supporters when the question inevitably comes up "I must apply my principles without fear of favor."
Whatever you think about Obama you have to admit that he is a very smart fellow.
Can I hack it to put a Linux distro, not android on it?
Nowhere does it say I have to rely on a governmental promise not to do an unreasonable search, it says I have a right to secure myself against such a search.
The proposal goes against the plain meaning of the fourth.
Where ever you look commercial routers are full of security vulnerabilities.
The GPL allows you to create modified version of the program without releasing the source, so long as you don't distribute. If they keep all the software inside the Russian government, they haven't distributed. So I don't think this can be called a rip-off.
This is writing blank checks against the future.
This is what happens when you write naming conventions in order to "get" a planet for political reasons!
Why is there all this freaking commentary and NO URL for the actual text of the response? Some of us want to read it ourselves. Get with it slashdot!
Right, because people of good character can never be coerced into becoming bad actors. Right. I guess, if you find someone with no remaining living relatives or friends and no addictions or unmet needs, you'll have found the one person in the world nobody can leverage in any way. Good luck with that.
Never is not available as an option. Like has there never been a failure of the legal system. Good character does not have to be perfect, it only has to be more reliable than the legal system. To increase reliability increase the number of signers of known good character required.
So you just choose people of good character to do your signing for you. As government moves to outlaw good character by forcing everyone to be a stooge for the government, it means the rule of law will no longer be an effective way to enforce contracts. In such an environment, ancient concepts like character and reputation become even more important.
Could apple contract with a foreign person, outside the jurisdiction of any U.S. Court, to do all the key signing that apple currently does? The sub-contractor would work according to a contractually specified algorithm, that basically says to signs what apple wants it to sign, but refuses to sign anything coerced. The sub-contractor would store the signing key outside the jurisdiction of any US court. If this scheme is ruled illegal and apple is pushed to the wall, apple could move all of itself offshore, and the Justice department could take responsibility for the resulting job loss.
Did they lock down the serial port interface to uboot? What about the jtag port? Can you upload using the jtag port?
Everything you do while working as a reporter for the New York Times is Commercial Speech? You clearly, do not know what you are talking about.
If it is non-political in nature yes. Because free speech is really about Politically based speech, not just any and all speech.
Great, your brilliance has revealed that first amendment protection for literary and religious speech does not exist! Nobody knew that before.
Riddle me this. If I write a script, and my boss
Hey idiot, the first amendment restricts the government and not your f*cking boss. You have once again proved that you do not know what you are talking about.
The first amendment applies to many aspects of civil society not just political speech, such as religion, taste, literature, philosophy. This has been settled law for as long as anyone can remember.
Everything you do while working as a reporter for the New York Times is Commercial Speech? You clearly, do not know what you are talking about.
The speech at issue here, the compelled speech, will not make Apple a profit. See the rest of my argument. It therefore is not commercial speech, therefore your argument collapses.
The government is not going to pay the true cost of this operation. Suppose the developer ordered to create this code quits instead, as indeed he must do, to protect his personal integrity. Yes developers can be bought on the market but it takes months to years to bring a developer up to speed on a particular piece of software. This can costs millions. I doubt the government will pay the true cost for this.
This will destroy the trust enjoyed by apple and its OS. The value of this asset can not be estimated. "He who robs my purse steals trash." The government does not intend to pay for this.
By Citizens United, corporations have rights. Therefore anything they do to Apple they can do to you. The government will be able to destroy the honor of any individual with integrity, with a simple court order, turning her into a government fink.