Initially comparison of streams is necessary. After the watermark technique is identified it can be filtered out of a single stream in real time. A few streams can be sent to a repeater for comparison to prevent leaks by stopping when the watermark is changed. Like I said, the watermarking raises the bar but will be defeated and life will go on.
It's not about who's pure. I can't control information once third parties have it. Pure today, evil tomorrow, who knows. I don't like sharing anything with Dropbox, Apple or Facebook either, and I try to avoid it.
It's just that I already use Google for searching the web, for maps, and for translation. And I use Youtube. I also store my contacts and keep a few bookmarks with Google because I use Android, but I'm close to stopping that practice.
Because of Google's search they collect too much information about me already, and I'm wary of them regardless of what they do or do not do. (Well, unless they encrypted everything client side with free software, utterly blinding themselves and their clients to everything I do)
I need to use Google a lot less, and I'm always on the lookout for ways to:
1) Use it less 2) Deny it access to information about me 3) Feed it false information about me 4) Encourage others to do all of the above
They already have too much of my online attention. Sharing anything except my searches with them is a non-starter. It doesn't matter how well implemented the service is. Because it's Google, there's just absolutely no way I'm using it.
I won't even look at files people try to share with me through Google. I just say, "Sorry, I don't use Google drive!" I feel so strongly about it I don't even care if it loses me business or friends.
I doubt it's actually possible to enforce encryption backdoors beyond a few major vendors. The result would be similar to exiting attempts to prohibit reverse engineering. It's impossible to outlaw debuggers, disassemblers, logic analyzers, and similar tools. It's like outlawing radios that can tune in to any station. It's been done, but it's not all that effective.
Even if all software from major vendors like Microsoft, Apple, and Google implemented protocols with backdoors, correct implementations of the underlying algorithms are necessary for those to function.
We've seen forced decryption laws in the UK. Forward secrecy basically defeats RIPA, because you can't force someone to decrypt something they never had the key for in the first place.
China has attempted to regulate cryptography, essentially requiring a license to develop, buy, sell, or research encryption. They have mandatory key escrow too. It's useless. Everyone uses encryption all the time. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.
That's true, but there was no book at the library that listed which articles in the newspaper we decided to read and which ones we decided to skip. The post office didn't make copies of all our letters and the phone company didn't record all our calls. When we used a map to find directions, none of this information used to be recorded. When we had our photographs developed, we could be quite sure the photo lab wasn't making copies of all of them.
Records of our financial transactions were much more limited because most of them were cash. Now we use payment cards for almost everything.
One useful tactic for managing the economy is manipulating public opinion. Especially the opinion of those members of the public who manage huge quantities of other people's money. The job of the economist then is not necessarily to discover the true state of the economy, but to convince others that is it in a certain state in order to influence their behavior.
Asserting a patent that turns out to be invalid or not applicable should cost the accuser big time. All of the defendants legal costs plus 5% of annual worldwide gross revenue would be a good start.
Note - Analysts are to refrain from generating IOI reports that: 1) Include any form of unauthorized PII 2) Include public reaction to DHS programs, policies and procedures unless they are operationally relevant (e.g., long wait times at TSA checkpoints) 3) Focus on individuals' First Amendment-protected activities unless they are operationally relevant (e.g., protest shuts down I-95 - in which case the report should focus on impact to operations and not the subject of the protest) 4) Overview proposed legislation or legal challenges on enacted legislation 5) Have an obvious political bias or agenda 6) Are predictive or futuristic
Slashdot Mirror
He could have written online voting system to elect MPs using Rock Paper Scissors.
If so, I can't believe they allow just anyone to post to it. That's insane.
Most MUAs won't accept To/CC/BCC of unlimited length.
Initially comparison of streams is necessary. After the watermark technique is identified it can be filtered out of a single stream in real time. A few streams can be sent to a repeater for comparison to prevent leaks by stopping when the watermark is changed. Like I said, the watermarking raises the bar but will be defeated and life will go on.
The watermarking will just be removed and life will go on.
Everything is being tied back to real identity and it's becoming more and more difficult to publish anything without leaving a trail back to yourself.
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc35...
If NSA hadn't been caught searching and storing content there wouldn't now be such effort into encrypting everything.
And after conversations are encrypted effort will be made to render traffic analysis useless as well.
Yeah that's true. If they run out of disk they probably delete my least interesting data to make room for more of theirs.
Illegally capture all the communication of the general public, while evading the lawful requirement to preserve their own.
Typical.
It's not about who's pure. I can't control information once third parties have it. Pure today, evil tomorrow, who knows. I don't like sharing anything with Dropbox, Apple or Facebook either, and I try to avoid it.
It's just that I already use Google for searching the web, for maps, and for translation. And I use Youtube. I also store my contacts and keep a few bookmarks with Google because I use Android, but I'm close to stopping that practice.
Because of Google's search they collect too much information about me already, and I'm wary of them regardless of what they do or do not do. (Well, unless they encrypted everything client side with free software, utterly blinding themselves and their clients to everything I do)
I need to use Google a lot less, and I'm always on the lookout for ways to:
1) Use it less
2) Deny it access to information about me
3) Feed it false information about me
4) Encourage others to do all of the above
They already have too much of my online attention. Sharing anything except my searches with them is a non-starter. It doesn't matter how well implemented the service is. Because it's Google, there's just absolutely no way I'm using it.
I won't even look at files people try to share with me through Google. I just say, "Sorry, I don't use Google drive!" I feel so strongly about it I don't even care if it loses me business or friends.
I doubt it's actually possible to enforce encryption backdoors beyond a few major vendors. The result would be similar to exiting attempts to prohibit reverse engineering. It's impossible to outlaw debuggers, disassemblers, logic analyzers, and similar tools. It's like outlawing radios that can tune in to any station. It's been done, but it's not all that effective.
Even if all software from major vendors like Microsoft, Apple, and Google implemented protocols with backdoors, correct implementations of the underlying algorithms are necessary for those to function.
We've seen forced decryption laws in the UK. Forward secrecy basically defeats RIPA, because you can't force someone to decrypt something they never had the key for in the first place.
China has attempted to regulate cryptography, essentially requiring a license to develop, buy, sell, or research encryption. They have mandatory key escrow too. It's useless. Everyone uses encryption all the time. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.
Such backdoors aren't enforceable in open source projects. If this comes to pass then free software will have a great competitive advantage.
That's true, but there was no book at the library that listed which articles in the newspaper we decided to read and which ones we decided to skip. The post office didn't make copies of all our letters and the phone company didn't record all our calls. When we used a map to find directions, none of this information used to be recorded. When we had our photographs developed, we could be quite sure the photo lab wasn't making copies of all of them.
Records of our financial transactions were much more limited because most of them were cash. Now we use payment cards for almost everything.
Android developer here. Samsung has good reason for not pushing an update: The update breaks a lot of stuff.
> The government scares me less because they don't want to maximize the money they get from me.
Really?
Who purchases the services of economists? Who consumes their work product?
A lot of economists are paid by central banks one way or another:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
One useful tactic for managing the economy is manipulating public opinion. Especially the opinion of those members of the public who manage huge quantities of other people's money. The job of the economist then is not necessarily to discover the true state of the economy, but to convince others that is it in a certain state in order to influence their behavior.
It sure does. No access to incoming SMS. I also can't get GCM working properly. Their docs are bad and their developer forums are a wasteland.
is the revenue of competing services.
Asserting a patent that turns out to be invalid or not applicable should cost the accuser big time. All of the defendants legal costs plus 5% of annual worldwide gross revenue would be a good start.
Note - Analysts are to refrain from generating IOI reports that:
1) Include any form of unauthorized PII
2) Include public reaction to DHS programs, policies and procedures unless they are operationally relevant (e.g., long wait times at TSA checkpoints)
3) Focus on individuals' First Amendment-protected activities unless they are operationally relevant (e.g., protest shuts down I-95 - in which case the report should focus on impact to operations and not the subject of the protest)
4) Overview proposed legislation or legal challenges on enacted legislation
5) Have an obvious political bias or agenda
6) Are predictive or futuristic
Great videos. Shame this didn't get more attention.
TSA forces passengers to surrender electronics? Under what circumstances? I've never heard of that.
The DEA are the real criminals.