Because it is not your job to do the police department's job.
Because they can, will and do take the most innocent, truthful and innocuous things and pervert, expropriate and abuse them grossly out of context to nail you to the wall for things you didn't do.
Because you should have the right to your own consciousness.
Because they have hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars, people and resources. You are one person. The right against self incrimination is one the few weapons you have.
Seriously, what the fuck is this over-privileged, rich white-ass, quasi-moral shitwit twaddle doing on Slashdot?
Now, let's get some design and engineering departments out here because they obviously don't know shit about it out there. Seriously, have you *seen* the atrocity that is the current iteration of ThinkPad?
Well, then the initial collection of evidence is legally permissible (border inspections don't even require suspicion, let alone a warrant). It's bullshit and shouldn't be this way, but it's legal.
Decrypting a hard drive is no different from letting the police into your house for a search
Sure it is.
The distinction here is that your home and the key to it is a physical "thing". Your encryption key is in your mind. By divulging it, you're effectively testifying against yourself.
And as someone else already mentioned, it is not illegal to not help the police in their investigation, only to actively obstruct it. You don't *need* to let them in, they can break down your door. You don't *need* to provide them the encryption key, it's up to them to break it.
There seem to be a lot of unanswered questions here...
What do we know about how the FBI came across the information that this person may be in possession of child porn? Were they tipped off by someone? Was it serendipitous? Were they monitoring his internet connection and did they have a warrant to do so? I think the answer to this really determines what evidence, if any, they should be allowed to use.
Did they have a warrant to crack the one encrypted hard drive? Without that or otherwise *strong* suspicion, how could any evidence from that operation be even remotely permissible?
What actual actual evidence from the cracked drive do they have when they say, "constitutes child porn"? Are there actual photos of several children in sexual situations? I ask because that wording smells very bullshitty. For all we know, it could be innocent pictures of his own kids in diapers or something. Or maybe no more than suspicious sounding file names with corrupted and unreadable data.
Furthermore, how do we know these files even belong to him? This guy is in IT, it's *extremely* plausible that these files are months-or-years-old backups of computers that don't even belong to him, possibly files he's never even seen or is aware exist (and before you say "strict liability", I say: my fuckin' ass... you can't realistically expect a backup provider to cross reference every single one of thousands or millions of files and cross reference them with every possible interpretation of every ruling of every law)
I agree, but good luck with that. They're too busy watching Dumb Bimbos of Retard Valley.
But beyond that, you'll find that many people (especially those religiously enamored) are pretty much incapable of both pragmatism and contemplating consequences. They are under the illusion that law is good and moral and right because they've never had the unfortunate experience of being on the wrong side of it (yet) while being morally and technically correct in every reasonable way.
It's a *long* journey to getting most people to disillusion themselves from this false sense of legal stability. That, and, "I'm not interested in politics, I have a life." But it would be a lot less necessary for someone to dedicate a lot of time to politics if everyone got a little involved.
Wow, one of the few times you'll actually see Slashdot promoting more government... I mean, I get what you're saying, the watchers shouldn't be the ones watching the watchers, but how will yet another department solve the problem? We've seen damn-near total collusion between the police, procecutors' offices and the courts, why would you expect a "department of police oversight" to be any different?
All footage is automatically and continually uploaded to servers located in a branch of government with a vested interest in preservation of the footage.
There is no power switch, it is always on, self contained and hardened against direct access without custom, specialized tools.
Any time footage is "missing", the officer is automatically suspended with pay pending an investigation. If it's determined to be a genuine malfunction, the officer can resume work. If it can be reasonably demonstrated, however, that the officer deliberately disabled, tampered with or obstructed the device, they should be forced to pay back any wages received during the suspension and charged for tampering with evidence.
But, really, who am I kidding... in reality, this will be no different than dash cams in every cruiser. Any time there is a hint of officer abuse or brutality, the footage will be mysteriously and conveniently "unavailable", there will be no real oversight to the whereabouts and, "yes, your honor, the camera just happened to malfunction during the exact time of the brutality accusations against me," will be accepted by the courts.
Until we have real oversight by people who genuinely have the public interest in mind over their own, this won't change anything.
Atleast in the case of movies content providers will never allow their content to be streamed without any sort of a DRM at all
Mmm, right, you mean like how they would *never* sell music without DRM?
Of course they won't if we just roll over and continue letting them fuck us in the ass. The MAFIAA are like terrorists: you don't negotiate with them because it tells them that you're willing to accept their demands and they'll come back for more and hit harder the next time.
The thing we need to remember is that the web can survive without them; they cannot survive without the web. How the W3C can cave like this defies logic and belief.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it is not your job to do the police department's job.
Because they can, will and do take the most innocent, truthful and innocuous things and pervert, expropriate and abuse them grossly out of context to nail you to the wall for things you didn't do.
Because you should have the right to your own consciousness.
Because they have hundreds, thousands or millions of dollars, people and resources. You are one person. The right against self incrimination is one the few weapons you have.
Seriously, what the fuck is this over-privileged, rich white-ass, quasi-moral shitwit twaddle doing on Slashdot?
No, they're unsuitable for business because they're shit.
Now, let's get some design and engineering departments out here because they obviously don't know shit about it out there. Seriously, have you *seen* the atrocity that is the current iteration of ThinkPad?
If this is what they're willing to reveal, imagine what spying they're *not* telling us about.
Well, then the initial collection of evidence is legally permissible (border inspections don't even require suspicion, let alone a warrant). It's bullshit and shouldn't be this way, but it's legal.
Decrypting a hard drive is no different from letting the police into your house for a search
Sure it is.
The distinction here is that your home and the key to it is a physical "thing". Your encryption key is in your mind. By divulging it, you're effectively testifying against yourself.
And as someone else already mentioned, it is not illegal to not help the police in their investigation, only to actively obstruct it. You don't *need* to let them in, they can break down your door. You don't *need* to provide them the encryption key, it's up to them to break it.
"Going through the drive with him," because...? How did this come about? Why would he be going through the drive with the FBI in the first place?
There seem to be a lot of unanswered questions here...
What do we know about how the FBI came across the information that this person may be in possession of child porn? Were they tipped off by someone? Was it serendipitous? Were they monitoring his internet connection and did they have a warrant to do so? I think the answer to this really determines what evidence, if any, they should be allowed to use.
Did they have a warrant to crack the one encrypted hard drive? Without that or otherwise *strong* suspicion, how could any evidence from that operation be even remotely permissible?
What actual actual evidence from the cracked drive do they have when they say, "constitutes child porn"? Are there actual photos of several children in sexual situations? I ask because that wording smells very bullshitty. For all we know, it could be innocent pictures of his own kids in diapers or something. Or maybe no more than suspicious sounding file names with corrupted and unreadable data.
Furthermore, how do we know these files even belong to him? This guy is in IT, it's *extremely* plausible that these files are months-or-years-old backups of computers that don't even belong to him, possibly files he's never even seen or is aware exist (and before you say "strict liability", I say: my fuckin' ass... you can't realistically expect a backup provider to cross reference every single one of thousands or millions of files and cross reference them with every possible interpretation of every ruling of every law)
I agree, but good luck with that. They're too busy watching Dumb Bimbos of Retard Valley.
But beyond that, you'll find that many people (especially those religiously enamored) are pretty much incapable of both pragmatism and contemplating consequences. They are under the illusion that law is good and moral and right because they've never had the unfortunate experience of being on the wrong side of it (yet) while being morally and technically correct in every reasonable way.
It's a *long* journey to getting most people to disillusion themselves from this false sense of legal stability. That, and, "I'm not interested in politics, I have a life." But it would be a lot less necessary for someone to dedicate a lot of time to politics if everyone got a little involved.
Windows 8: so bad, they can't even *give* it away!
For open source. Save your files in open and/or openly defined, standardized formats and there will always be software that can deal with it.
But I guess it's difficult for people to hear you explain that to them with their head up their ass.
Wow, one of the few times you'll actually see Slashdot promoting more government... I mean, I get what you're saying, the watchers shouldn't be the ones watching the watchers, but how will yet another department solve the problem? We've seen damn-near total collusion between the police, procecutors' offices and the courts, why would you expect a "department of police oversight" to be any different?
Yes, as long as the cellular RF hardware runs on the correct frequencies. Most likely, it does.
You're right, there is no skill in pressing a button. The skill is in knowing what do to before pressing the button.
And despite the "best camera is the one you have with you" mantra, better tools always make a huge difference in the hands of a skilled craftsman.
Right, so the obvious solution is to ... lower your quality, attracting even fewer subscribers. Great plan!
Chicago Sun Times' new classified ad
All footage is automatically and continually uploaded to servers located in a branch of government with a vested interest in preservation of the footage.
There is no power switch, it is always on, self contained and hardened against direct access without custom, specialized tools.
Any time footage is "missing", the officer is automatically suspended with pay pending an investigation. If it's determined to be a genuine malfunction, the officer can resume work. If it can be reasonably demonstrated, however, that the officer deliberately disabled, tampered with or obstructed the device, they should be forced to pay back any wages received during the suspension and charged for tampering with evidence.
But, really, who am I kidding... in reality, this will be no different than dash cams in every cruiser. Any time there is a hint of officer abuse or brutality, the footage will be mysteriously and conveniently "unavailable", there will be no real oversight to the whereabouts and, "yes, your honor, the camera just happened to malfunction during the exact time of the brutality accusations against me," will be accepted by the courts.
Until we have real oversight by people who genuinely have the public interest in mind over their own, this won't change anything.
Don't be ridiculous. They've done that permanently.
You accidentally tapped a hotkey combination you were unaware existed.
A million friggin' times this.
Is Microsoft really thus delusional or have they all drank the Metro flavored kool-aid?
Atleast in the case of movies content providers will never allow their content to be streamed without any sort of a DRM at all
Mmm, right, you mean like how they would *never* sell music without DRM?
Of course they won't if we just roll over and continue letting them fuck us in the ass. The MAFIAA are like terrorists: you don't negotiate with them because it tells them that you're willing to accept their demands and they'll come back for more and hit harder the next time.
The thing we need to remember is that the web can survive without them; they cannot survive without the web. How the W3C can cave like this defies logic and belief.
Devil we know versus the devil we don't.
I'll take the first one and *not* corporatize the fundamental construct of the web, thanks.
How? Do they even know how the webpages work? We would basically have the web of 1995 in all its slow, clunky awfulness.
You want a web without JavaScript? Go right ahead and make a viable open source alternative that offers the same facility.
To which they'll respond: yeah, right, enjoy doing time for contempt.
You're not going to find any disagreement here, but how the hell else can you send money online with the same universality?