Sure, but you can't justifiably try to legislate the entire thing out of existence b/c even most traffic is illegal. AFAIK (IANAL) the precedents for this sort of thing generally state that even a small amount of legal uses are enough to justify it.
I mean, look at xeroxes in Libraries: they're almost never used for legal purposes, but they're protected anyway.
So you're basically telling me that if I make a recording to which I hold the copyright (like my infamous version of 'Greensleeves' for the kazoo) and make the decision to release it publicly, or to make it public domain (thus relinquishing copyrights on it forever) I can't distribute it over a network as an mp3?
While not all mp3 sites are legal, not all mp3 sites are illegal either. Like any technology it can be used for both legal and illegal purposes. So far the courts have agreed.
I *know*. I'm just saying that I don't think that they pulled the remark out of their ass. They just really over exaggerated one facet of the man. They probably could say the same about Lincoln with only about as much overexaggeration. Sheesh.
I know from property law. IANAL, but my father is an eminent domain lawyer and I've grown up in an environment very saturated in property law.
The trick is this: Mitnick can't assign absolutely any value to his property. Rather, apprasals will have to be made by both sides and a common figure arrived upon. But as long as the files are encrypted their value cannot be particularly great. Furthermore, if it consists of illegally copied information Mitnick certainly would have no right to it (outside of using it as an element in his legal defense).
For Mitnick to really do anything along the lines you suggest he would have to reveal the contents of the file. But this is what he does *not* want.
It's pretty clear that Mitnick, or his counsel feel that the unencrypted information could lead to either more charges being made against him (and another five years in jail with no trial) or at least provide the basis for a 'fishing expedition' by the government - effectively telling them where to look for non-tainted evidence against Mitnick for other crimes for which he could still be liable.
The issue is a very interesting combination of 1)Self incrimination, 2)Eminent Domain, 3)Due Process. Personally I doubt there will be a resolution anytime soon.
Kevin can tell his lawyers the key and it is still safe as a matter of attorney/client privilege. Then the lawyers can examine the decrypted files themselves and not worry about the govt. The trick is proving to be getting the files.
a lot actually hinges on the key - if he memorized it, no problem. but if it's written down somewhere, the government can confiscate that w/o violating his rights. So I would expect that Kevin has used a key which is hidden someplace, and the location of that key need not be divulged.
if he was really smart, instead of just hiding a disk somewhere he used some widely available but innocent thing (e.g. all odd-numbered pages of 'One Million Random Numbers') as the key so that there was no concern that the key could be confiscated, or that he'd forget it.
Yeah, it's security through obscurity, but in this case that's probably an okay plan.
Like the NSA would share its expertise with the FBI in a zillion years anyway. The NSA has spent the better part of the century at learning how to break codes and they've spent huge sums of money and hired most of the best mathematicians around.
I kind of doubt that the FBI could get on their feet in a similar operation rapidly - besides, how many math geeks are going to want to deal with FBI training?
(meanwhile the NSA read Kevin's files years ago and has probably financed a Cray by stealing the money he stole from someone else;)
Yes, but the constitution doesn't just get up and whack members of the government with a clue stick (but I'd like to see a schoolhouse rock in which it did;)
Rather, a higher court must consider the case in an appeal, and it's expected that they will pay close attention to the constitution's bearing on the case.
It probably is a fine line, but I suspect that the difference is that as Mitnick believes (on advice from his council, who probably know the contents of the files but are not required to divulge them b/c of the attorney/client privilege) that to reveal the contents of that file would be self-incriminating.
To cite your previous example, someone accused of murder does not have to tell the police the location of the body as his special knowledge of that is incriminating. But if he were a witness instead, he would have to testify. (barring privileged circumstances) Basically the idea is that you do not have to be a witness against *yourself*.
This is quite different than withholding material evidence (as opposed to testimony). Nixon had to turn over the tapes. But if the tapes had been encrypted, he does not have to hand over the key - provided that it's knowledge in his head as opposed to a physical key.
So yeah, I am indeed saying that if you hide enough evidence you can be found not guilty. This is b/c you are presumed innocent until there is enough evidence and/or testimony that you didn't do it.
Being convicted of murder is not precisely the same as actually being a murderer. Many guilty murderers are not convicted or found guilty in a court of law, and there are quite a few incidents in which people innocent of murder are found guilty and end up in prision until they can clear themselves (e.g. 'Hurricane' Carter, in a theater near you)
Well not if the poster is the copyright holder. Failing to make that sort of thing explicit is what leads to the DVD fiasco we've been having lately (where among other things the DVD CCA would not let the copyright owner of a DVD view it however he likes)
Yeah, but he's entitled to them because either: 1) It's his property, it has not been proven to be illegally acquired (though this depends a lot, given that it's very likely to have been and Mitnick was guilty)
2) If ever used as evidence, the defense is entitled to a copy
At worst the government can keep them even if they're just encrypted random numbers or something else innocent, but he has to be compensated for them (difficult to get a good appraisal though;)
Of course, he already waived his right to a speedy trial. IANAL, but if you can successfully withold evidence (e.g. by not testifying against yourself - obviously the case if Mitnick memorized the key and is in sole posession of it) beyond the statute of limitations you really are scot-free.
Besides, the government _is_ in posession of the evidence. No one said it would be easy for them though. When it is made so, deliberately, we call that a police state.
Well, the 5th also contains the eminent domain clause. Assuming that the burden of proof falls on the government (tricky in this case, with an ex-con) they must ultimately return the files, or have them fairly appraised and pay him for them. The latter is nigh-impossible w/o the key though, nor could an appraisor claim confidentiality, which makes this unappealing to Mitnick.
The fifth amendment is all over this issue like a cheap suit.
1) Mitnick doesn't have to incriminate himself, and therefore doesn't have to release the key.
2) The files are his (until proven otherwise) and if the government is planning to keep them then they are required to compensate him for them (though this would require an appraisal, so if he's smart he'll skip that to avoid revealing the contents;) again b/c of the fifth amendment.
3) And of course, as the defense he's entitled to copies of the documents (which he can decrypt for himself) as a part of his legal defense.
The law DOES err on the side of the defendant. But this looks so cut and dry that I think that if this went to the Supremes they'd stop it in the name of common sense.;)
I didn't say this was bad, but charging that he was a 'godless communist' or some such is not wholly without foundation. Just mostly;) But I can guess as to where they'd be getting the idea from.
Well... not that I like to support white supremacists too much (they often dislike me because I'm Jewish - go figure) but King, in his later years, may have indeed had some leanings towards socialism or communism. Not the sort practiced in Russia or China, but he was IIRC in favor of some form of wealth redistribution.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject would like to speak up?
So, pray tell, how do you determine if a site is pornagraphic? Who makes the call? And what if a site incorporates both pornagraphic and non-pornagraphic elements?
It strikes me that the people you're largely upset with are more or less the equivalent of phone slammers, or spammers rather than pornographers. Most pornographers are so (justifibly) paranoid that they go to extremes to avoid violating laws. False advertising laws may apply in the instance of redirection. People interested only in banner impressions are a slightly different class of people.
Perhaps more active enforcement of laws against this behavior (redirection, false advertising, wire fraud, etc.) would be in order?
Re: your definition of hate speech, would then the advocation of the destruction of hate groups be considered hate speech as you're basing their annhilation (etc) based upon their beliefs?
re: version control, well, i rather wish i had _something_, especially as the Mac is moving towards a multi-user that may be served off of a central machine. obviously you don't want it everyplace though.
Yeah, it's been a while since I had used a newton (used to work at a store that sold them, so I had trained the demo to my awful awful handwriting;) but that _was_ one of the nicer features.
As for specific behaviors... I dunno offhand... file organization utilities are definately up there, perhaps with a version control system embedded at a very deep level. (The BeOS database would probably excel at that) OS9 can automatically set the clock to a timeserver and look for software updates. Security and stability issues aside, these are both really very handy things to have imho.
I suppose that the basic idea is that I would like more interface software which increases the reliability of the computer when it recieves no maintenance from a human (the default state for a PC), which assists in organizing information via some system which foremost is sensible to the user (aliases are rather like symlink. i'd also like to see the functionality of link)
Do note that these are generally not OS issues. I think that there's a difference between the OS and the interface that people use to interact with it, though Apple likes to conceal that line, and most of the OS in general. Steering wheels aren't engines after all.
IANAL, but that's exactly what it means. They retain the rights regarding the duplication and distribution of those copies (within limits - you can generally, but not always - copy for personal use, e.g. backups or for compatability) but not _use_, per se.
I can buy a DVD and crush it into little pieces or put it in a record player. I can resell it at a loss, and I can give it away. But I can't rent it and I can't show it publicly (as in a theater) though I can show it in my home (as in if friends/family come over)
honestly, i think that both the X server and X client GUIs (platinum and aqua, respectively) are tired.
I want improvements into the interface part of GUI, not the graphic part. What I wouldn't give for some fairly accurate (I know, I know) AI or something to help get stuff for me better.
Oh, it's the old pipe dream of intelligent agents, true, but if it could be done it would really help people use computers more than discovering an alpha of 0.5 is.
At any rate, some interface research beyond the desktop metaphor (but not into 3d, please) would be nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but you can't justifiably try to legislate the entire thing out of existence b/c even most traffic is illegal. AFAIK (IANAL) the precedents for this sort of thing generally state that even a small amount of legal uses are enough to justify it.
I mean, look at xeroxes in Libraries: they're almost never used for legal purposes, but they're protected anyway.
So you're basically telling me that if I make a recording to which I hold the copyright (like my infamous version of 'Greensleeves' for the kazoo) and make the decision to release it publicly, or to make it public domain (thus relinquishing copyrights on it forever) I can't distribute it over a network as an mp3?
While not all mp3 sites are legal, not all mp3 sites are illegal either. Like any technology it can be used for both legal and illegal purposes. So far the courts have agreed.
I *know*. I'm just saying that I don't think that they pulled the remark out of their ass. They just really over exaggerated one facet of the man. They probably could say the same about Lincoln with only about as much overexaggeration. Sheesh.
I know from property law. IANAL, but my father is an eminent domain lawyer and I've grown up in an environment very saturated in property law.
The trick is this: Mitnick can't assign absolutely any value to his property. Rather, apprasals will have to be made by both sides and a common figure arrived upon. But as long as the files are encrypted their value cannot be particularly great. Furthermore, if it consists of illegally copied information Mitnick certainly would have no right to it (outside of using it as an element in his legal defense).
For Mitnick to really do anything along the lines you suggest he would have to reveal the contents of the file. But this is what he does *not* want.
It's pretty clear that Mitnick, or his counsel feel that the unencrypted information could lead to either more charges being made against him (and another five years in jail with no trial) or at least provide the basis for a 'fishing expedition' by the government - effectively telling them where to look for non-tainted evidence against Mitnick for other crimes for which he could still be liable.
The issue is a very interesting combination of 1)Self incrimination, 2)Eminent Domain, 3)Due Process. Personally I doubt there will be a resolution anytime soon.
Ah, but he need do nothing like that.
Kevin can tell his lawyers the key and it is still safe as a matter of attorney/client privilege. Then the lawyers can examine the decrypted files themselves and not worry about the govt. The trick is proving to be getting the files.
a lot actually hinges on the key - if he memorized it, no problem. but if it's written down somewhere, the government can confiscate that w/o violating his rights. So I would expect that Kevin has used a key which is hidden someplace, and the location of that key need not be divulged.
if he was really smart, instead of just hiding a disk somewhere he used some widely available but innocent thing (e.g. all odd-numbered pages of 'One Million Random Numbers') as the key so that there was no concern that the key could be confiscated, or that he'd forget it.
Yeah, it's security through obscurity, but in this case that's probably an okay plan.
Like the NSA would share its expertise with the FBI in a zillion years anyway. The NSA has spent the better part of the century at learning how to break codes and they've spent huge sums of money and hired most of the best mathematicians around.
;)
I kind of doubt that the FBI could get on their feet in a similar operation rapidly - besides, how many math geeks are going to want to deal with FBI training?
(meanwhile the NSA read Kevin's files years ago and has probably financed a Cray by stealing the money he stole from someone else
If it was someone else's data he can't get compensated for it you know.
;)
(besides something similar already happened in the 911 case
Yes, but the constitution doesn't just get up and whack members of the government with a clue stick (but I'd like to see a schoolhouse rock in which it did ;)
Rather, a higher court must consider the case in an appeal, and it's expected that they will pay close attention to the constitution's bearing on the case.
Looks like a strong argument in favor of secrets and against biometrics to me. ;)
It probably is a fine line, but I suspect that the difference is that as Mitnick believes (on advice from his council, who probably know the contents of the files but are not required to divulge them b/c of the attorney/client privilege) that to reveal the contents of that file would be self-incriminating.
To cite your previous example, someone accused of murder does not have to tell the police the location of the body as his special knowledge of that is incriminating. But if he were a witness instead, he would have to testify. (barring privileged circumstances) Basically the idea is that you do not have to be a witness against *yourself*.
This is quite different than withholding material evidence (as opposed to testimony). Nixon had to turn over the tapes. But if the tapes had been encrypted, he does not have to hand over the key - provided that it's knowledge in his head as opposed to a physical key.
So yeah, I am indeed saying that if you hide enough evidence you can be found not guilty. This is b/c you are presumed innocent until there is enough evidence and/or testimony that you didn't do it.
Being convicted of murder is not precisely the same as actually being a murderer. Many guilty murderers are not convicted or found guilty in a court of law, and there are quite a few incidents in which people innocent of murder are found guilty and end up in prision until they can clear themselves (e.g. 'Hurricane' Carter, in a theater near you)
Well not if the poster is the copyright holder. Failing to make that sort of thing explicit is what leads to the DVD fiasco we've been having lately (where among other things the DVD CCA would not let the copyright owner of a DVD view it however he likes)
Bear in mind that this judge is an idiot.
(Mitnick was IIRC prohibited from using a phone b/c she believed he could hack with it. WTF?)
Yeah, but he's entitled to them because either:
;)
1) It's his property, it has not been proven to be illegally acquired (though this depends a lot, given that it's very likely to have been and Mitnick was guilty)
2) If ever used as evidence, the defense is entitled to a copy
At worst the government can keep them even if they're just encrypted random numbers or something else innocent, but he has to be compensated for them (difficult to get a good appraisal though
Of course, he already waived his right to a speedy trial. IANAL, but if you can successfully withold evidence (e.g. by not testifying against yourself - obviously the case if Mitnick memorized the key and is in sole posession of it) beyond the statute of limitations you really are scot-free.
Besides, the government _is_ in posession of the evidence. No one said it would be easy for them though. When it is made so, deliberately, we call that a police state.
Well, the 5th also contains the eminent domain clause. Assuming that the burden of proof falls on the government (tricky in this case, with an ex-con) they must ultimately return the files, or have them fairly appraised and pay him for them. The latter is nigh-impossible w/o the key though, nor could an appraisor claim confidentiality, which makes this unappealing to Mitnick.
IANAL....
The fifth amendment is all over this issue like a cheap suit.
;) again b/c of the fifth amendment.
;)
1) Mitnick doesn't have to incriminate himself, and therefore doesn't have to release the key.
2) The files are his (until proven otherwise) and if the government is planning to keep them then they are required to compensate him for them (though this would require an appraisal, so if he's smart he'll skip that to avoid revealing the contents
3) And of course, as the defense he's entitled to copies of the documents (which he can decrypt for himself) as a part of his legal defense.
The law DOES err on the side of the defendant. But this looks so cut and dry that I think that if this went to the Supremes they'd stop it in the name of common sense.
I didn't say this was bad, but charging that he was a 'godless communist' or some such is not wholly without foundation. Just mostly ;) But I can guess as to where they'd be getting the idea from.
Well... not that I like to support white supremacists too much (they often dislike me because I'm Jewish - go figure) but King, in his later years, may have indeed had some leanings towards socialism or communism. Not the sort practiced in Russia or China, but he was IIRC in favor of some form of wealth redistribution.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject would like to speak up?
So, pray tell, how do you determine if a site is pornagraphic? Who makes the call? And what if a site incorporates both pornagraphic and non-pornagraphic elements?
It strikes me that the people you're largely upset with are more or less the equivalent of phone slammers, or spammers rather than pornographers. Most pornographers are so (justifibly) paranoid that they go to extremes to avoid violating laws. False advertising laws may apply in the instance of redirection. People interested only in banner impressions are a slightly different class of people.
Perhaps more active enforcement of laws against this behavior (redirection, false advertising, wire fraud, etc.) would be in order?
Re: your definition of hate speech, would then the advocation of the destruction of hate groups be considered hate speech as you're basing their annhilation (etc) based upon their beliefs?
yeah, i'm aware of the clock thing.
re: version control, well, i rather wish i had _something_, especially as the Mac is moving towards a multi-user that may be served off of a central machine. obviously you don't want it everyplace though.
Yeah, it's been a while since I had used a newton (used to work at a store that sold them, so I had trained the demo to my awful awful handwriting ;) but that _was_ one of the nicer features.
;)
As for specific behaviors... I dunno offhand... file organization utilities are definately up there, perhaps with a version control system embedded at a very deep level. (The BeOS database would probably excel at that) OS9 can automatically set the clock to a timeserver and look for software updates. Security and stability issues aside, these are both really very handy things to have imho.
I suppose that the basic idea is that I would like more interface software which increases the reliability of the computer when it recieves no maintenance from a human (the default state for a PC), which assists in organizing information via some system which foremost is sensible to the user (aliases are rather like symlink. i'd also like to see the functionality of link)
Do note that these are generally not OS issues. I think that there's a difference between the OS and the interface that people use to interact with it, though Apple likes to conceal that line, and most of the OS in general. Steering wheels aren't engines after all.
(still waiting for a DWIM interface
IANAL, but that's exactly what it means. They retain the rights regarding the duplication and distribution of those copies (within limits - you can generally, but not always - copy for personal use, e.g. backups or for compatability) but not _use_, per se.
I can buy a DVD and crush it into little pieces or put it in a record player. I can resell it at a loss, and I can give it away. But I can't rent it and I can't show it publicly (as in a theater) though I can show it in my home (as in if friends/family come over)
ah, but you forget that commandment 14 is 'thou shalt rock and roll all night and party every day' ;)
So you have a lot of windows files named "singer\title.mp3" do you?
: is the path seperator. All other characters are valid in file names (though some are tricky to get in there, like returns - it is possible though)
Hopefully better unicode support will also help when we can use some obscure, reserved and unused glyph for that purpose.
Also, if you want truly long filenames, check out BeOS. OS X would be much cooler if it incorporated their db idea.
honestly, i think that both the X server and X client GUIs (platinum and aqua, respectively) are tired.
I want improvements into the interface part of GUI, not the graphic part. What I wouldn't give for some fairly accurate (I know, I know) AI or something to help get stuff for me better.
Oh, it's the old pipe dream of intelligent agents, true, but if it could be done it would really help people use computers more than discovering an alpha of 0.5 is.
At any rate, some interface research beyond the desktop metaphor (but not into 3d, please) would be nice.