The once-believed advantage of open-source was that companies might be in bed with the NSA, putting flaws in deliberately, but open-source projects wouldn't be.
With open source, you can start making your own version and modifications. If there is an apparent conflict of interest, someone will start a new project, possibly using the source code. Or you can hire people to work on it for you. You're not beholden to a single company.
Both groups are just as vulnerable to malicious insiders
No, they're not. It's much easier to spot when everything is out in the open. Not only do professionals often look at big open source projects, but 'normal' people also do so; there are more prying eyes.
We already have countless pieces of evidence of companies being in bed with the government, but with open source, there's a greater chance any such malicious activity will be spotted. Not 100%, but then again, who has ever claimed that?
I meant to say, "but that doesn't mean that people aren't worthless idiots for going along with it." Well, I guess they are worthwhile to someone, so you have a point there.
It also leads to morons getting upset over jokes, like with the man who joked about having Ebola, or when government thugs harass people when they joke about bombing something. The idiot isn't the one who made the joke, but the ones who overreact. Oftentimes it's an infringement upon someone's constitutional rights when the government gets involved. As if making a joke about having Ebola makes you more likely to have Ebola, or making a joke about being a terrorist makes you more likely to be one.
All of these things caused by irrational, worthless panic.
I suppose the difference for me is that although both have the same effect on the celebrity, I have a right to one (my money, my choice), while the other, I don't.
Sounds like you're appealing to law here. To me, whether it's illegal or not doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, since you acknowledged that in either situation, the effect on the person remains the same. Why would the legality change anything? It's just a fallacy.
And yet even if they could, it wouldn't change a damn thing. People have been voting for the 'lesser' of two evils since the beginning. It's partly because our system is poorly designed, but that doesn't mean that people are worthless idiots for going along with it.
or you may simply be running into the open arms of some intelligence service that is using those services as a front.
Like Google and Facebook, which just give the government whatever they want, while sometimes putting on a show of fighting back but really accomplishing nothing? I'll take unknowns over knowns any day. Besides the government, both Google and Facebook are scummy companies that I want nothing to do with. I'm not going to hand my information over on a silver fucking platter to companies proven to be scumbags merely because there's a chance (however small) that the government controls every service in existence and everything is actually a honeypot. That's incredibly dumb.
Not using Facebook and such just means that you're not a fucking idiot. Are people who aren't fucking idiots that rare, and would the NSA and friends actually say, "Wow! We've somehow determined that this specific person is not using Facebook! Get him!"?
Of course government can read my e-mail. All they have to be is waterboard me.
"All they have to do"? Doing that to everyone would take forever. The point is to make sure they have more trouble automatically gathering everyone's emails.
Or install enough camera in public places to capture my unlock pattern.
Nice pseudoscience. And this would still be more difficult than what they're doing now.
There are indeed technical solutions to some social problems.
Not gaining is the same as losing. If I criticize some product and cause others to not buy it, then I've stolen from the company that made the product, and so have the customers who didn't buy it.
The rule that what I create with my own hands os mine to give away, trade, or sell exists for a very good reason.
Indeed. Private property is very important....Oh. You're trying to say you should be able to control what sort of information other people send and receive with their *own* private property, to the detriment of free speech and private property rights. I see. Well, not gaining something is indeed the same as losing something. Truly flawless logic.
You deride IQ tests, but hold up your own as a sign of intellect.
Wow, you really can't win no matter what you do, can you? If you don't mention your IQ (or admit that yours isn't that great) and you bash IQ tests, retards will say that you're just bashing IQ tests because you have a low/mediocre IQ. If you do mention you have a high IQ and bash IQ tests (logical, since you're not necessarily saying that it means you're intelligent), then idiots will criticize you for attacking IQ tests while supposedly holding up your own as a sign of intellect.
I take it as, "I could pretend I'm superior because I have a high IQ, but I'm above that and I know IQ tests are nonsense." But whatever.
You may well be punished for the injuries caused by the resulting *panic* if there was no such fire, though.
Nonsense. Punishing someone because other people took harmful courses of action in response to your speech is the same as punishing someone for their speech. You cannot separate the two. It's an unconstitutional restriction upon free speech.
Why is it great to go after pedophiles - people who have a sexual attraction to prepubescent children? Let me guess: You bought into the myth that all pedophiles are child molesters, making the word entirely meaningless and demonizing countless innocent people. Sound about right?
With encryption not only is it possible to make "forcing the lock" extremely tough
Too bad for them. I'd rather alleged criminals get away.
Decrypting your data is NOT the same as being compelled to give testimony
Forcing you to hand over a key is forcing you to divulge information that will likely be used to retrieve more information which may will incriminate you; there is no reasonable difference here, despite what some liars may say. I have no reason to surrender information to filthy government thugs who don't care about freedom or the constitution.
it's actually more like having to hand over the keys to your car so a search warrant can be executed.
As long as you must tell them something, as far as I'm concerned, the 5th amendment applies. If they try to force you to tell them the location of your car keys so that they can search your car, your 5th amendment rights apply. If they don't have the keys and can't find them, then they'll have to find another way to get into the car, and if they can't, too bad for them. This isn't exactly difficult.
A law which lets the court keep you locked up indefinitely, until you decrypt the data, would be reasonable as a middle-ground
No, it would be absolutely disgusting; enough so to make me vomit. You can't compromise away your constitutional and fundamental liberties. Not if you want to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' anyway. Free? Brave? Don't make me fucking laugh.
And it would also mean that people who legitimately do not remember could be locked away forever; that's even more immoral. Again, I'd rather have tons of criminals get away.
Whether or not this action is a protected fifth amendment right is still very much in the air.
The constitution is what it is; judges can only interpret it. It's clear that being forced to hand out keys is a violation of the fifth amendment to anyone who cares about the constitution.
Alas, evidence is that most people who get excited about the First tend to think that the Second is something that can (and should!) be overridden at a whim....
I think the government should follow all of the constitution, but the reverse is also true. I can't even count how many gun fanatics I've seen that support the NSA, the TSA, etc. Some of us actually care about the constitution and not just the second amendment, but a lot of the people that don't also frequently make the claim that the government is incompetent and corrupt, so why the hell do they want it to be able to collect everyone's information?
Slashdot Mirror
The once-believed advantage of open-source was that companies might be in bed with the NSA, putting flaws in deliberately, but open-source projects wouldn't be.
With open source, you can start making your own version and modifications. If there is an apparent conflict of interest, someone will start a new project, possibly using the source code. Or you can hire people to work on it for you. You're not beholden to a single company.
Both groups are just as vulnerable to malicious insiders
No, they're not. It's much easier to spot when everything is out in the open. Not only do professionals often look at big open source projects, but 'normal' people also do so; there are more prying eyes.
We already have countless pieces of evidence of companies being in bed with the government, but with open source, there's a greater chance any such malicious activity will be spotted. Not 100%, but then again, who has ever claimed that?
Um, I never said it did.
I meant to say, "but that doesn't mean that people aren't worthless idiots for going along with it." Well, I guess they are worthwhile to someone, so you have a point there.
It also leads to morons getting upset over jokes, like with the man who joked about having Ebola, or when government thugs harass people when they joke about bombing something. The idiot isn't the one who made the joke, but the ones who overreact. Oftentimes it's an infringement upon someone's constitutional rights when the government gets involved. As if making a joke about having Ebola makes you more likely to have Ebola, or making a joke about being a terrorist makes you more likely to be one.
All of these things caused by irrational, worthless panic.
For those who said "No need to panic" ... are we there yet?
No. Panicking does nothing, except perhaps make you look like an irrational moron. Like all those people panicking about terrorism after 9/11; idiots.
I know of at least 2 very big projects that have backdoors injected and them and no one has a clue.
Really? Well, it's free software, so either inform someone or get cracking. I see you're being very vague about this.
I suppose the difference for me is that although both have the same effect on the celebrity, I have a right to one (my money, my choice), while the other, I don't.
Sounds like you're appealing to law here. To me, whether it's illegal or not doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, since you acknowledged that in either situation, the effect on the person remains the same. Why would the legality change anything? It's just a fallacy.
And yet even if they could, it wouldn't change a damn thing. People have been voting for the 'lesser' of two evils since the beginning. It's partly because our system is poorly designed, but that doesn't mean that people are worthless idiots for going along with it.
or you may simply be running into the open arms of some intelligence service that is using those services as a front.
Like Google and Facebook, which just give the government whatever they want, while sometimes putting on a show of fighting back but really accomplishing nothing? I'll take unknowns over knowns any day. Besides the government, both Google and Facebook are scummy companies that I want nothing to do with. I'm not going to hand my information over on a silver fucking platter to companies proven to be scumbags merely because there's a chance (however small) that the government controls every service in existence and everything is actually a honeypot. That's incredibly dumb.
You shouldn't be using phones that other people can control in the first place.
Because that makes you stand out, too.
Not using Facebook and such just means that you're not a fucking idiot. Are people who aren't fucking idiots that rare, and would the NSA and friends actually say, "Wow! We've somehow determined that this specific person is not using Facebook! Get him!"?
Of course government can read my e-mail. All they have to be is waterboard me.
"All they have to do"? Doing that to everyone would take forever. The point is to make sure they have more trouble automatically gathering everyone's emails.
Or install enough camera in public places to capture my unlock pattern.
Nice pseudoscience. And this would still be more difficult than what they're doing now.
There are indeed technical solutions to some social problems.
Not gaining is the same as losing. If I criticize some product and cause others to not buy it, then I've stolen from the company that made the product, and so have the customers who didn't buy it.
Not enough, obviously. Download some more so they'll go bankrupt. I can just see their faces as all the money magically vanishes from their wallets!
And sure, in the absolutist sense both are still wrong.
Right and wrong are subjective. There is no "absolutist sense," unless you believe in some sort of magical sky daddy or mysterious magic force.
However, I consider it even more wrong to support an industry that is set up to screw over the consumer.
So don't buy it and don't infringe upon people's copyrights, since you believe both are wrong.
The rule that what I create with my own hands os mine to give away, trade, or sell exists for a very good reason.
Indeed. Private property is very important. ...Oh. You're trying to say you should be able to control what sort of information other people send and receive with their *own* private property, to the detriment of free speech and private property rights. I see. Well, not gaining something is indeed the same as losing something. Truly flawless logic.
You deride IQ tests, but hold up your own as a sign of intellect.
Wow, you really can't win no matter what you do, can you? If you don't mention your IQ (or admit that yours isn't that great) and you bash IQ tests, retards will say that you're just bashing IQ tests because you have a low/mediocre IQ. If you do mention you have a high IQ and bash IQ tests (logical, since you're not necessarily saying that it means you're intelligent), then idiots will criticize you for attacking IQ tests while supposedly holding up your own as a sign of intellect.
I take it as, "I could pretend I'm superior because I have a high IQ, but I'm above that and I know IQ tests are nonsense." But whatever.
Yeah, because that sort of attack on someone you don't even know will definitely debunk someone's arguments. How intelligent of you.
You may well be punished for the injuries caused by the resulting *panic* if there was no such fire, though.
Nonsense. Punishing someone because other people took harmful courses of action in response to your speech is the same as punishing someone for their speech. You cannot separate the two. It's an unconstitutional restriction upon free speech.
Why is it great to go after pedophiles - people who have a sexual attraction to prepubescent children? Let me guess: You bought into the myth that all pedophiles are child molesters, making the word entirely meaningless and demonizing countless innocent people. Sound about right?
With encryption not only is it possible to make "forcing the lock" extremely tough
Too bad for them. I'd rather alleged criminals get away.
Decrypting your data is NOT the same as being compelled to give testimony
Forcing you to hand over a key is forcing you to divulge information that will likely be used to retrieve more information which may will incriminate you; there is no reasonable difference here, despite what some liars may say. I have no reason to surrender information to filthy government thugs who don't care about freedom or the constitution.
it's actually more like having to hand over the keys to your car so a search warrant can be executed.
As long as you must tell them something, as far as I'm concerned, the 5th amendment applies. If they try to force you to tell them the location of your car keys so that they can search your car, your 5th amendment rights apply. If they don't have the keys and can't find them, then they'll have to find another way to get into the car, and if they can't, too bad for them. This isn't exactly difficult.
A law which lets the court keep you locked up indefinitely, until you decrypt the data, would be reasonable as a middle-ground
No, it would be absolutely disgusting; enough so to make me vomit. You can't compromise away your constitutional and fundamental liberties. Not if you want to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' anyway. Free? Brave? Don't make me fucking laugh.
And it would also mean that people who legitimately do not remember could be locked away forever; that's even more immoral. Again, I'd rather have tons of criminals get away.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against taking away the sexual privacy, nor the medical privacy, of sexual offenders or drug offenders
The war on drugs is horrible garbage, so you should be against it.
Whether or not this action is a protected fifth amendment right is still very much in the air.
The constitution is what it is; judges can only interpret it. It's clear that being forced to hand out keys is a violation of the fifth amendment to anyone who cares about the constitution.
Alas, evidence is that most people who get excited about the First tend to think that the Second is something that can (and should!) be overridden at a whim....
I think the government should follow all of the constitution, but the reverse is also true. I can't even count how many gun fanatics I've seen that support the NSA, the TSA, etc. Some of us actually care about the constitution and not just the second amendment, but a lot of the people that don't also frequently make the claim that the government is incompetent and corrupt, so why the hell do they want it to be able to collect everyone's information?
An act which alone started yet another foreign war:
No, that would be our warmongering politicians (including Obama). We don't actually have to play world police.
That's kind of the whole point of smoking pot
That's just your reason.