They would just write an amendment to it that exempts them from being monitored. Just like the Do Not Call lists, Social Security, laws against insider trading, etc, etc...
I'm a fan of reactivating the baby tooth pathway. We already have the capability to regrow and replace teeth. It ay just take a little work to use it at will.
Ah, the "it could always be worse" argument against making the world a better place. Sibling to the "first world problem" quip, where any desire to right wrongs is contested unless circumstances are as dire as they could possibly be. God forbid we actually learn from the lessons taught by other places and other times.
You don't think that knowing others are watching their loved one's murder for gratification harms the family?
It doesn't actually harm the family any more than your opinions on limiting free speech harms me. If it takes telling other people that an act happened for people to be "harmed" by it, then there really is no victim. You don't have a right to not be offended.
Do all a person's rights die the moment they do?
I'm pretty sure that they specifically do. Even the inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, end when a person dies. An estate has limited, short-term rights. There are laws against the desecration of corpses, too, but the plaintiff in such cases is not the corpse. There's no logic to rights being held by the inanimate vacated vessel of a former person.
I'm absolutely appalled at the idea of watching the grisly murder of another human being and I have no desire to ever associate with the sort of person who gets off on that sort of thing, but your arguments just sound like emotional hand-wringing. Being offended is not a valid starting point for good law.
In other words, no law is unconstitutional unless the government declares that it is unconstitutional? How convenient.
Actually, it was established in case law dating to 1886 (Norton v. Shelby County) that an unconstitutional act is void “ab initio” i.e. the moment it is signed into “law.” As stated in that case: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection, it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
This might be a good opportunity to push for an amendment to the constitution that clarifies and limits the scope of the commerce clause, the "necessary and proper" clause, and anything else that is too nebulous to limit the powers of the federal government. Fixing the commerce clause alone would stop a huge swath of the most egregious overstep we've seen.
Does your scenario ever actually happen, though? I've been on the internet long enough to know that you just don't click on ads. If you want Nike shoes, you go directly to to nike.com or your favorite online shoe store.
Clicking on internet ads is like clicking links in spam email. There's absolutely no reason to trust that you'll end up where you want to go.
Here in reality, yes, people get away with crimes. The point of a criminal trial is to look at the evidence that exists and determine if that evidence shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime. If there isn't adequate evidence to prove this, the the defendant is acquitted. This is the desired outcome, even if some guilty persons may go free. The alternative (imprisoned innocent people) is a much much worse outcome.
Until we have sci-fi time viewers or reliable psychics or something, this is the best we can do. "Getting away with crime" isn't exactly a new topic of discussion, either.
In the case of corporate infrastructure, like you describe, it's much easier. If you have knowledgeable people designing and running the system, you can make it quite easy for the end users. It's easier to justify the expense and hassle of crypto dongles (or smartcards) to take key management away from the users. You can set policies on the systems to force the use of encryption.
It gets hard when you start dealing with random people, your grandparents, and friends. They can't keep their computers free of malware. How do you expect them to keep their private key safe and not lose it even if you go through the trouble of setting everything up for them?
Frankly, I'm disappointed that there aren't more USB PKCS #11 dongles available and that OS support for these is still severely lacking and, if even available, flaky. If decent support for (especially email) encryption was more widely available, the hard stuff gets reduced to key management. Hardware security modules makes key management much easier for clueless ens users:
The key is now a physical object that can be protected as if it were a house or car key.
The key can be plugged into a friends computer to check email without a massive security breach. (still not a great idea, but better than the current situation)
The key survives lost/stolen/reformatted computers.
A crypto module is a more secure solution on an untrusted computer (which their computer would always be with them administering it).
There's more to certifying the delivery of mail than proving it was processed at the post office. Actual certified mail is tracked every step of the way, up until you sign for the delivery. My postman misdelivers mail all of the time; it'd be easy to claim I never got a particular piece of mail.
That's how it is in Colorado, too. The issuing authority has the responsibility to demonstrate who the driver is. By law, if the driver's face is obscured, the ticket is thrown out.
I should note though that in college the humanities aren't the only alternative to engineering.
Science isn't in any better shape. Law hasn't been in good shape for a while, either. I'm guessing that medicine and business are the only safe bets now (and I think business is hit or miss, like law).
You choose the appropriate article based on how the acronym is pronounced. NSA is pronounced "en es ay", so "an" precedes the "en". NASA is pronounced "na sa", so "a" would precede the "na".
If you pronounced NASA as "en ay es ay", you would use an "an" before it. Try actually saying "a N". It's awkward to say, which is why we say "an N".
SpiderOak's encryption is entirely dependent on the strength of your password (directly: the key that protects your data only contains as many bits of entropy as your password). The key that protects your data is derived entirely from your password, which is also stored (at least hashed, I hope) on their webserver (you use it to login and manage your account). Aside from lots of posturing, their approach to security seems to be pretty misguided. They don't even warn you about weak passwords when you generate one; they'll happily accept a one character password without so much as a warning.
Despite Congress's ability to get any real meaningful work done in Washington as a whole due to partisan politics, it's still entirely possible for individual members to multitask and work on multiple works of legislation at the same time.
That doesn't really follow. If you don't have time to do the big important tasks that your job requires, then you shouldn't be wasting time on the little unimportant aspects of it. If allocating yourself more time isn't what it takes to complete your duties, then you are not qualified for your job.
Their job is to take care of the important issues that are being neglected. If they can't complete their job in a finite amount of time, they need to all be removed until we find a set of people who can complete it. The fact that their bickering is keeping them from doing their job only further underlines their incompetence.
Yeah. I didn't see that until after I pressed submit and it has been bugging the crap out of be ever since then. I'm not quite sure how I even managed to type that. Grrr.
How is that a straw man? The UK has banned the mere possession in public of knives without an approved reason. There was (is?) talk of banning the possession of knitting needles (pointy sticks) in public. I'm offering my interpretation of the unstated mindset that leads to such actions. If you're an authoritarian and my post bothers you, then please refrain from reading it. Calling on the state to render me the loser because I broke the rules is a bit extreme (ok, that was a stretch, but it was fun)!
Besides, this isn't a formal debate and I'm not offering a counter argument to any stated position (anywhere in this thread). I get to frame the discussion.
And "Straw man, you lose," is a pretty weak argument overall. I think I get the points.
I'm pretty sure that they'd advocate for the removal of knifes also...and everything else including pointy sticks.
The position that they're operating from is that nobody has the right to defend themselves from an assailant. You can call on the state to come and defend you and if they don't make it there in time, well... so be it. They'd see your needless death as a tragic loss, no doubt, but it would be a much better outcome than the transfer of power from the state (where all power belongs and is parceled out from) to the individual. It's a pretty typical authoritarian viewpoint.
So we need to throw out all of our advances in western government because we now face the weakest enemy we have ever faced to date?
Western government survived civil wars, two World Wars, a thermonuclear Cold War and survived intact, but the hillbilly terrorist are simply too much for us?
Wouldn't door knobs, faucet and toilet knobs, stair railings and cart handles be a much higher priority?
If you have germaphobic tendencies, think of this the next time you're in a public bathroom: what is the last thing touched before you wash your hands and the first thing touched after you wash your hands?
Brought to you by the Ruining Daily Activities Program...
The use of an ever-so-slightly curved face on the Galaxy Nexus seemed to bring some anti-shatter success. I wonder why that wasn't further explored in any subsequent models.
If the public keys are exchanged over the same medium through which you are communicating, you need to verify that you actually got each others keys (by comparing fingerprints, or by having established a web of trust). Otherwise, the entire process is open to a man-in-the-middle attack, whereby you don't actually have each others public keys but have a false set generated by the MitM.
Slashdot Mirror
They would just write an amendment to it that exempts them from being monitored. Just like the Do Not Call lists, Social Security, laws against insider trading, etc, etc...
I'm a fan of reactivating the baby tooth pathway. We already have the capability to regrow and replace teeth. It ay just take a little work to use it at will.
Ah, the "it could always be worse" argument against making the world a better place. Sibling to the "first world problem" quip, where any desire to right wrongs is contested unless circumstances are as dire as they could possibly be. God forbid we actually learn from the lessons taught by other places and other times.
You don't think that knowing others are watching their loved one's murder for gratification harms the family?
It doesn't actually harm the family any more than your opinions on limiting free speech harms me. If it takes telling other people that an act happened for people to be "harmed" by it, then there really is no victim. You don't have a right to not be offended.
Do all a person's rights die the moment they do?
I'm pretty sure that they specifically do. Even the inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, end when a person dies. An estate has limited, short-term rights. There are laws against the desecration of corpses, too, but the plaintiff in such cases is not the corpse. There's no logic to rights being held by the inanimate vacated vessel of a former person.
I'm absolutely appalled at the idea of watching the grisly murder of another human being and I have no desire to ever associate with the sort of person who gets off on that sort of thing, but your arguments just sound like emotional hand-wringing. Being offended is not a valid starting point for good law.
In other words, no law is unconstitutional unless the government declares that it is unconstitutional? How convenient.
Actually, it was established in case law dating to 1886 (Norton v. Shelby County) that an unconstitutional act is void “ab initio” i.e. the moment it is signed into “law.”
As stated in that case: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection, it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
This might be a good opportunity to push for an amendment to the constitution that clarifies and limits the scope of the commerce clause, the "necessary and proper" clause, and anything else that is too nebulous to limit the powers of the federal government. Fixing the commerce clause alone would stop a huge swath of the most egregious overstep we've seen.
Does your scenario ever actually happen, though? I've been on the internet long enough to know that you just don't click on ads. If you want Nike shoes, you go directly to to nike.com or your favorite online shoe store.
Clicking on internet ads is like clicking links in spam email. There's absolutely no reason to trust that you'll end up where you want to go.
Warning, long, investigative article in german.
Considering you're posting this to an English-language site frequented by people who have ADD and never RTFA, would you mind summing it up?
...oh look, a bird!
Here in reality, yes, people get away with crimes. The point of a criminal trial is to look at the evidence that exists and determine if that evidence shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime. If there isn't adequate evidence to prove this, the the defendant is acquitted. This is the desired outcome, even if some guilty persons may go free. The alternative (imprisoned innocent people) is a much much worse outcome.
Until we have sci-fi time viewers or reliable psychics or something, this is the best we can do. "Getting away with crime" isn't exactly a new topic of discussion, either.
Fair enough. Sorry for beating it when it was down.
"Approved by Congress" is entirely orthogonal to "Constitutional".
(The fact that this approval is done in secret and without the informed consent of the people doesn't help your case, either.)
In the case of corporate infrastructure, like you describe, it's much easier. If you have knowledgeable people designing and running the system, you can make it quite easy for the end users. It's easier to justify the expense and hassle of crypto dongles (or smartcards) to take key management away from the users. You can set policies on the systems to force the use of encryption.
It gets hard when you start dealing with random people, your grandparents, and friends. They can't keep their computers free of malware. How do you expect them to keep their private key safe and not lose it even if you go through the trouble of setting everything up for them?
Frankly, I'm disappointed that there aren't more USB PKCS #11 dongles available and that OS support for these is still severely lacking and, if even available, flaky. If decent support for (especially email) encryption was more widely available, the hard stuff gets reduced to key management. Hardware security modules makes key management much easier for clueless ens users:
There's more to certifying the delivery of mail than proving it was processed at the post office. Actual certified mail is tracked every step of the way, up until you sign for the delivery. My postman misdelivers mail all of the time; it'd be easy to claim I never got a particular piece of mail.
That's how it is in Colorado, too. The issuing authority has the responsibility to demonstrate who the driver is. By law, if the driver's face is obscured, the ticket is thrown out.
I should note though that in college the humanities aren't the only alternative to engineering.
Science isn't in any better shape. Law hasn't been in good shape for a while, either. I'm guessing that medicine and business are the only safe bets now (and I think business is hit or miss, like law).
You choose the appropriate article based on how the acronym is pronounced. NSA is pronounced "en es ay", so "an" precedes the "en". NASA is pronounced "na sa", so "a" would precede the "na".
If you pronounced NASA as "en ay es ay", you would use an "an" before it. Try actually saying "a N". It's awkward to say, which is why we say "an N".
SpiderOak does not use proper security.
SpiderOak's encryption is entirely dependent on the strength of your password (directly: the key that protects your data only contains as many bits of entropy as your password). The key that protects your data is derived entirely from your password, which is also stored (at least hashed, I hope) on their webserver (you use it to login and manage your account). Aside from lots of posturing, their approach to security seems to be pretty misguided. They don't even warn you about weak passwords when you generate one; they'll happily accept a one character password without so much as a warning.
Despite Congress's ability to get any real meaningful work done in Washington as a whole due to partisan politics, it's still entirely possible for individual members to multitask and work on multiple works of legislation at the same time.
That doesn't really follow. If you don't have time to do the big important tasks that your job requires, then you shouldn't be wasting time on the little unimportant aspects of it. If allocating yourself more time isn't what it takes to complete your duties, then you are not qualified for your job.
Their job is to take care of the important issues that are being neglected. If they can't complete their job in a finite amount of time, they need to all be removed until we find a set of people who can complete it. The fact that their bickering is keeping them from doing their job only further underlines their incompetence.
Yeah. I didn't see that until after I pressed submit and it has been bugging the crap out of be ever since then. I'm not quite sure how I even managed to type that. Grrr.
How is that a straw man? The UK has banned the mere possession in public of knives without an approved reason. There was (is?) talk of banning the possession of knitting needles (pointy sticks) in public. I'm offering my interpretation of the unstated mindset that leads to such actions. If you're an authoritarian and my post bothers you, then please refrain from reading it. Calling on the state to render me the loser because I broke the rules is a bit extreme (ok, that was a stretch, but it was fun)!
Besides, this isn't a formal debate and I'm not offering a counter argument to any stated position (anywhere in this thread). I get to frame the discussion.
And "Straw man, you lose," is a pretty weak argument overall. I think I get the points.
I'm pretty sure that they'd advocate for the removal of knifes also ...and everything else including pointy sticks.
The position that they're operating from is that nobody has the right to defend themselves from an assailant. You can call on the state to come and defend you and if they don't make it there in time, well... so be it. They'd see your needless death as a tragic loss, no doubt, but it would be a much better outcome than the transfer of power from the state (where all power belongs and is parceled out from) to the individual. It's a pretty typical authoritarian viewpoint.
So we need to throw out all of our advances in western government because we now face the weakest enemy we have ever faced to date?
Western government survived civil wars, two World Wars, a thermonuclear Cold War and survived intact, but the hillbilly terrorist are simply too much for us?
Wouldn't door knobs, faucet and toilet knobs, stair railings and cart handles be a much higher priority?
If you have germaphobic tendencies, think of this the next time you're in a public bathroom: what is the last thing touched before you wash your hands and the first thing touched after you wash your hands?
Brought to you by the Ruining Daily Activities Program...
The use of an ever-so-slightly curved face on the Galaxy Nexus seemed to bring some anti-shatter success. I wonder why that wasn't further explored in any subsequent models.
If the public keys are exchanged over the same medium through which you are communicating, you need to verify that you actually got each others keys (by comparing fingerprints, or by having established a web of trust). Otherwise, the entire process is open to a man-in-the-middle attack, whereby you don't actually have each others public keys but have a false set generated by the MitM.