Conversely, the US wasn't involved with constant invasions in to Afghanistan. Yet Afghanistan offered a safe harbor to a group that already had a history of attacking US interests.
Geopolitics are much more complex than a simple scoreboard.
Having said that, the point here is that what happens to others in the world can still affect you. Sometimes dramatically.
... i don't really care about life in north korea.
sure it sucks for people there, but i'm not living there. except for a few crazy people who try to sneak in, most people want to get out. i can't do anything about the people living there so it's not a priority for me
Much the same could have been said about Afghanistan in the 90s.
Frankly I feel as if you have a bunch of Generals and politicians who have seen Operating Swordfish, Hackers, and similar Hollywood blockbusters - and think that hacking (and security) is this glamorous little battle rather than a spotty nerd installing patches, changing configuration files, and others looking for human mistakes in those configurations/networks.
We're in a state of transition. Those who have long been charged, in one manner or another, with security have long dealt with the concept within a physical domain. But now they are finding that their role has expanded in to information security. The natural instinct is to apply one to the other.
While I agree with most of your post, keep in mind Richard A. Clarke was the National Coordinator for Security and the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council for something like 30 years. He may know a little bit about what he's talking about.
But does that make him qualified to understand information security issues? I've seen an unsettling increase in physical security specialists taking on information security roles and being rather clueless about it. While the general mindset isn't entirely inappropriate, there is a tendency to try and force physical security solutions and views on an environment that does not operate under the same rules and restrictions. Granted - my viewpoint isn't anywhere near the level of the world view that Clarke operates on. But I hear what he (and others) say and can't help but notice the echoes of clueless proclamations in my much smaller corner of the world.
Whoa. Wait a second. You mean we've been complaining all this time about shallow sound-bite and press-release "reporting" and then they slip in a REAL reporter? With an in-depth story? That requires... reading the whole thing?!
I don't know, and when restricted to the moment of hijacking itself you may be right.
Keep in mind that the parent in this thread stated that they would not board a plane if they saw "Muslims" also boarding. So the issue of hijacking itself is rather central to the conversation.
I suppose interjecting costumes in to the conversation is my fault. In my defense, I made the assumption someone would identify a Muslim by their strict adherence to Islamic dress.
When you look at the terrorists' broader lives, it's quite common to see an embrace of Islam and increasing strictness in adherence to Islam in the time leading up to the attack, including dress.
Sure. They drink the Koolaid. Deeply. But keep in mind that there are many more people clinging to their religious beliefs and customs that aren't outwardly hostile or even militant. If anything, I would expect devout Muslims to cling to those customs even more in this current atmosphere of fear and (to some extent) hostility towards their beliefs. Painting them all with the broad brush of fear and distrust is creating a cultural feedback loop. As an aside, I've seen enough anti-Obama "I'll cling to my guns and my Bible" bumper stickers to acknowledge that cultural defensiveness isn't limited to Muslims.
Not only does this create cultural division, but it does very little to keep you safe. The percentage of militant Muslims are very low. The likelihood of you encountering a someone who is planning to do any violence (much less hijacking) in the name of Islam is rather slim; assuming you're not going out of your way to find hotbeds of such activity. You have a better chance of getting killed driving around during the day. Yet we don't see people stating that fear of automobiles is completely rational and that they personally will not drive on a road if they see any other vehicles.
Minor point but Islamic garb is more specific than traditional Middle Eastern garb, which would include things like belly dancing outfits. Even I would say a fear of belly dancers is irrational.
Point taken. I suppose part of the problem is finding a label that's inclusive enough without being too inclusive. I accept "Islamic garb" as we're really talking about clothing requirements as prescribed by Islamic custom (law?) than any particular regional custom.
The point is that the small subset of Muslims in America who choose to ostentatiously wear non-Western clothing have a different agenda than Muslims who assimilate in terms of visibility. Whatever statistics you care to quote about Muslims and terrorism probably don't separate out that small subset for analysis, unfortunately. At least I'm not aware of any. But at the same time, any statistics about Muslims and terrorism which don't make the separation would be weakened when applied to such a visibly distinct subset.
How many acts of terrorism against an airline have been committed by terrorists dressed in traditional Islamic garb? The mugshots and video footage I've seen recently all show western style clothes.
I agree that people wearing these clothes are choosing to stand apart from society. But we have all manner of cultural communities and subcultures that do the same thing. Dressing differently isn't a crime. And dressing differently has all manner of motivations beyond an overall desire to cause harm to others.
Why oh why do people have a need to spread reverse FUD and give "linux" props it does not deserve?
Because Microsoft highlighted the TradeElect system in their "Get the Facts" campaign. Oddly enough, if you read the press kit Microsoft put together, you'd get the impression that a recent version of Windows and an optimised application was in place and doing very well. Maybe Linux does get some small slice of kudos after all.
Isn't that the nature of the beast? Every software project (proprietary or otherwise) always has something in the works to address current complaints (assuming said complaints aren't dismissed). Whether it works or not tends to take release and implementation to determine.
Exactly. The Pentagon had no choice. No matter what they said, it was unlikely Wikileaks would have complied. The material was already classified and Wikileaks was going to publish it.
Assisting Wikileaks might also alter the legal standing of Wikileaks' activities. It might encourage additional leaks. It's not all about PR.
Keep in mind that publishing this material is entirely Wikileaks' choice. This asking the Pentagon for assistance seems to be an attempt to foster off that responsibility to the Pentagon.
Everything in life has risk. The best you can do is mitigate the risk. Reportedly, Wikileaks attempted to redact as many names as possible for the first leak and asked the Pentagon to help (and none was provided).
Yes - I've heard of Wikileaks offer as well. It strikes me as being laughable at best and disingenuous at worse. Do they honestly believe the Pentagon is going to condone publishing classified material?
The DoD's mitigation of risk involves classifying that information. Wikileaks is circumventing that mitigation. While "everything in life has risk", that doesn't discount the possible increased risk due to Wikileaks' actions.
I should note that I do believe there are times when that risk is warranted by the issue at hand. But even then, one doesn't negate risk by ignoring it exists. A whistleblower should be fully aware of the consequences of their actions and balance that against the importance of the issue they wish to uncover.
Wikileaks may have a bias, but they also know their message is destroyed if they are shown to censor data for their effort. The 'Collatoral Murder' fisasco showed that. Even there, they provided the full video but put the focus on where *the issue* was for a short attention span viewing crowd.
The "Collatoral Murder" video is a really great example. That wasn't simply pairing down the information to cater to short attention spans. It was a nicely done propaganda piece. For me, that propaganda effort over-shadowed the opportunity to hold the US Military accountable to mistakes made. But then, it also played very well with the anti-war movement. I'd hazard to guess Wikileaks gained more supporters than they lost for their efforts.
Funny how the very rarely release the information they are given about China, Russia and other such countries. You would think that an unbiased source would not hold such information back, but they do.
If you aren't a Western Democracy you are safe from Wikileaks.
And you have proof of them withholding information?
Go back and read that article. They didn't counter the statement that there is a risk. What they did state was that no intelligence sources or methods were uncovered. And an un-named NATO official noted that there are no cases of an Afghan needing protection or relocation.
That does take some of the fire out of the made-for-Fox-News bite "they have blood on their hands." But it doesn't eliminate the issue of providing enemy forces with intelligence.
If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Which isn't exactly what you paraphrased. Granted - I don't agree in either case. I believe we have a right to privacy. And it seems Schmidt recognizes that:
Granted - that doesn't read as well. The headlines aren't as flashy. Which is a shame because in that same interview, what Schmidt says that's really telling is:
"If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."
This is simple confirmation of what was expected. Anyone who has spent some time sniffing unencrypted wifi traffic (i.e. wardriving) has likely seen the exact types of data that's being described. That Google's tools (and I suspect they were re-purposing the same OSS tools we all have access to) during extensive amounts of wardriving is no surprise. The real question is what Google had planned to do with this data.
There are plenty of people who haven't spent any time watching Kismet and ARE surprised at this. It seems to me that this surprise has over-ridden the real question. It's as if Google were the only entities out there doing these things. That their here-unto-unmolested privacy has been pierced by Google's roving gaze. In reality, they've always been exposed and likely exposed to far more than Google's Streetmap vans. But they are keen to lash out at Google.
But again - all this thrashing about is a red herring. The issue really is what Google was doing with this data. It does look like Google was picking up additional information that they weren't interested in. It doesn't look like they were trying to record full sessions and capture sensitive data per se. And if this is so, Google's proper handling and purging of extra data would be a Good Idea. Just as it would be a Good Idea for people to understand the nature of the public networks they put sensitive information on.
At the same time, he is an engineer. He has some idea of the physics involved and mechanics of the vehicles. He can make a reasonable assessment of how the cars would react in a given situation. Meanwhile, he also knows that the traffic is increasing. He can't possibly know what the condition of the driver is. But it's a reasonable assessment that in such an environment, a vehicle traveling at that speed without control is going to cause a lot of damage and risk more than one life. And he is now in front of that out-of-control vehicle in heavy traffic. To do what you propose, he has to maintain or increase his speed and maneuver through heavy traffic far enough away to ensure the swerving vehicle isn't going to hit him as as he slows down so that the danger passes him. All before coming up on the intersection that's "a few hundred yards away." He's in a risky situation no matter what action he takes. His action wasn't entirely irrational.
You must have a high standard for rationality. Fear is a built-in human response. Acting on fear is no different than acting on hunger. Is it irrational to eat when you're hungry?
Well, yes. They're natural survival mechanisms. It doesn't mean they are rational. Rational behavior requires thought and (to some extent) action consistent with one's best interests.
When you're hungry, the rational thing to do is eat something nutritious. Note that hunger itself isn't rational. In some cases, hunger is actually detrimental to our health (we don't always feel "hungry" because we require sustenance). In others, we can respond to hunger in very irrational ways (unhealthy foods, binge eating, and even eating inedible items in rarer cases). That doesn't mean feeling hungry isn't a natural part of our existence.
Fear is also natural. But we can do very irrational things in reaction to that fear. Rational behavior requires recognizing that fear, understanding the survival risk, and then behaving in a manner to ensure survival.
I don't find it particularly odd that someone would experience fear seeing people in traditional middle-eastern garb boarding an aircraft. We've been bombarded by imagery of violent people in the Middle East and Muslims in particular. However, that only represents a small subset of a much larger population. The notion that someone is a threat solely because they dress differently is absurd. Rational behavior is to recognize the fear and discount it if no other information about the situation / person exists to further the notion of a threat.
Man, I can't get enough of these graphics cards stories! Oh yeah!
Just because you're not interested, it doesn't mean someone else isn't. It's like you were driving your car down a highway and you see an exit for a road that's not on your route. You might not care about that exit. But for someone who needs gas at the station on that intersection, that exit is very well timed. That doesn't mean you need to take the exit either. Unless you're just curious and you want to drive around a bit. Then you better fill up anyway because you never know where the next gas station will be.
Seems like a rational fear to have. I would cancel my flight immediately if I observed anyone getting on board that appeared to be of middle eastern origin.
No - fear is not rational. Fear is an irrational survival instinct. Acting on that fear is simply an indication that you are a poor judge of risk.
When will/. readers acknowledge that they're not the entire fucking market for computing devices?
I acknowledge that I am not "the entire fucking market for computing devices." But then, that a market exists doesn't counter all arguments. Lots of people believe there's a Nigerian prince that desperately needs their help. Even more are oblivious to their desktop being a participant in bot net turf wars while feeding the constant traffic of spam. It's not me. But there are plenty of other people who are not me.
I should admit that I picked weighted examples; its a pretty safe bet that nobody is pro-scam or pro-botnet. I was going to pick on the Zune and iPod but that just gets the Zune and iPod fans all riled up. And besides, I've bought iPods as gifts before (nobody has wanted a Zune:P). I thought my wife's iPod was nice and she's been really happy with it. I warned her about the Apple store and DRM but she didn't get what I was telling her - until she moved stuff to her laptop and her DRM-encumbered iTunes stuff didn't transfer over.
Slashdot Mirror
one war in 1959-1959
compare that to afghanistan. constant invasions.
Conversely, the US wasn't involved with constant invasions in to Afghanistan. Yet Afghanistan offered a safe harbor to a group that already had a history of attacking US interests.
Geopolitics are much more complex than a simple scoreboard.
Having said that, the point here is that what happens to others in the world can still affect you. Sometimes dramatically.
... i don't really care about life in north korea.
sure it sucks for people there, but i'm not living there. except for a few crazy people who try to sneak in, most people want to get out. i can't do anything about the people living there so it's not a priority for me
Much the same could have been said about Afghanistan in the 90s.
Frankly I feel as if you have a bunch of Generals and politicians who have seen Operating Swordfish, Hackers, and similar Hollywood blockbusters - and think that hacking (and security) is this glamorous little battle rather than a spotty nerd installing patches, changing configuration files, and others looking for human mistakes in those configurations/networks.
We're in a state of transition. Those who have long been charged, in one manner or another, with security have long dealt with the concept within a physical domain. But now they are finding that their role has expanded in to information security. The natural instinct is to apply one to the other.
While I agree with most of your post, keep in mind Richard A. Clarke was the National Coordinator for Security and the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council for something like 30 years. He may know a little bit about what he's talking about.
But does that make him qualified to understand information security issues? I've seen an unsettling increase in physical security specialists taking on information security roles and being rather clueless about it. While the general mindset isn't entirely inappropriate, there is a tendency to try and force physical security solutions and views on an environment that does not operate under the same rules and restrictions. Granted - my viewpoint isn't anywhere near the level of the world view that Clarke operates on. But I hear what he (and others) say and can't help but notice the echoes of clueless proclamations in my much smaller corner of the world.
Whoa. Wait a second. You mean we've been complaining all this time about shallow sound-bite and press-release "reporting" and then they slip in a REAL reporter? With an in-depth story? That requires... reading the whole thing?!
Thanks for providing an example that drives home the parent's point.
Now let's get this thing on the hump - we got some flyin' to do.
Oh, wait...
"Yeeeeehaaaaw?"
I don't know, and when restricted to the moment of hijacking itself you may be right.
Keep in mind that the parent in this thread stated that they would not board a plane if they saw "Muslims" also boarding. So the issue of hijacking itself is rather central to the conversation.
I suppose interjecting costumes in to the conversation is my fault. In my defense, I made the assumption someone would identify a Muslim by their strict adherence to Islamic dress.
When you look at the terrorists' broader lives, it's quite common to see an embrace of Islam and increasing strictness in adherence to Islam in the time leading up to the attack, including dress.
Sure. They drink the Koolaid. Deeply. But keep in mind that there are many more people clinging to their religious beliefs and customs that aren't outwardly hostile or even militant. If anything, I would expect devout Muslims to cling to those customs even more in this current atmosphere of fear and (to some extent) hostility towards their beliefs. Painting them all with the broad brush of fear and distrust is creating a cultural feedback loop. As an aside, I've seen enough anti-Obama "I'll cling to my guns and my Bible" bumper stickers to acknowledge that cultural defensiveness isn't limited to Muslims.
Not only does this create cultural division, but it does very little to keep you safe. The percentage of militant Muslims are very low. The likelihood of you encountering a someone who is planning to do any violence (much less hijacking) in the name of Islam is rather slim; assuming you're not going out of your way to find hotbeds of such activity. You have a better chance of getting killed driving around during the day. Yet we don't see people stating that fear of automobiles is completely rational and that they personally will not drive on a road if they see any other vehicles.
Minor point but Islamic garb is more specific than traditional Middle Eastern garb, which would include things like belly dancing outfits. Even I would say a fear of belly dancers is irrational.
Point taken. I suppose part of the problem is finding a label that's inclusive enough without being too inclusive. I accept "Islamic garb" as we're really talking about clothing requirements as prescribed by Islamic custom (law?) than any particular regional custom.
The point is that the small subset of Muslims in America who choose to ostentatiously wear non-Western clothing have a different agenda than Muslims who assimilate in terms of visibility. Whatever statistics you care to quote about Muslims and terrorism probably don't separate out that small subset for analysis, unfortunately. At least I'm not aware of any. But at the same time, any statistics about Muslims and terrorism which don't make the separation would be weakened when applied to such a visibly distinct subset.
How many acts of terrorism against an airline have been committed by terrorists dressed in traditional Islamic garb? The mugshots and video footage I've seen recently all show western style clothes.
I agree that people wearing these clothes are choosing to stand apart from society. But we have all manner of cultural communities and subcultures that do the same thing. Dressing differently isn't a crime. And dressing differently has all manner of motivations beyond an overall desire to cause harm to others.
Why oh why do people have a need to spread reverse FUD and give "linux" props it does not deserve?
Because Microsoft highlighted the TradeElect system in their "Get the Facts" campaign. Oddly enough, if you read the press kit Microsoft put together, you'd get the impression that a recent version of Windows and an optimised application was in place and doing very well. Maybe Linux does get some small slice of kudos after all.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070706203521/http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/casestudies/lse.mspx
Isn't that the nature of the beast? Every software project (proprietary or otherwise) always has something in the works to address current complaints (assuming said complaints aren't dismissed). Whether it works or not tends to take release and implementation to determine.
Exactly. The Pentagon had no choice. No matter what they said, it was unlikely Wikileaks would have complied. The material was already classified and Wikileaks was going to publish it.
Assisting Wikileaks might also alter the legal standing of Wikileaks' activities. It might encourage additional leaks. It's not all about PR.
Keep in mind that publishing this material is entirely Wikileaks' choice. This asking the Pentagon for assistance seems to be an attempt to foster off that responsibility to the Pentagon.
Everything in life has risk. The best you can do is mitigate the risk. Reportedly, Wikileaks attempted to redact as many names as possible for the first leak and asked the Pentagon to help (and none was provided).
Yes - I've heard of Wikileaks offer as well. It strikes me as being laughable at best and disingenuous at worse. Do they honestly believe the Pentagon is going to condone publishing classified material?
The DoD's mitigation of risk involves classifying that information. Wikileaks is circumventing that mitigation. While "everything in life has risk", that doesn't discount the possible increased risk due to Wikileaks' actions.
I should note that I do believe there are times when that risk is warranted by the issue at hand. But even then, one doesn't negate risk by ignoring it exists. A whistleblower should be fully aware of the consequences of their actions and balance that against the importance of the issue they wish to uncover.
Wikileaks may have a bias, but they also know their message is destroyed if they are shown to censor data for their effort. The 'Collatoral Murder' fisasco showed that. Even there, they provided the full video but put the focus on where *the issue* was for a short attention span viewing crowd.
The "Collatoral Murder" video is a really great example. That wasn't simply pairing down the information to cater to short attention spans. It was a nicely done propaganda piece. For me, that propaganda effort over-shadowed the opportunity to hold the US Military accountable to mistakes made. But then, it also played very well with the anti-war movement. I'd hazard to guess Wikileaks gained more supporters than they lost for their efforts.
Funny how the very rarely release the information they are given about China, Russia and other such countries. You would think that an unbiased source would not hold such information back, but they do.
If you aren't a Western Democracy you are safe from Wikileaks.
And you have proof of them withholding information?
Go back and read that article. They didn't counter the statement that there is a risk. What they did state was that no intelligence sources or methods were uncovered. And an un-named NATO official noted that there are no cases of an Afghan needing protection or relocation.
That does take some of the fire out of the made-for-Fox-News bite "they have blood on their hands." But it doesn't eliminate the issue of providing enemy forces with intelligence.
Actually, what he said is:
If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Which isn't exactly what you paraphrased. Granted - I don't agree in either case. I believe we have a right to privacy. And it seems Schmidt recognizes that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpfa4sH4Dpk
Granted - that doesn't read as well. The headlines aren't as flashy. Which is a shame because in that same interview, what Schmidt says that's really telling is:
"If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."
This is simple confirmation of what was expected. Anyone who has spent some time sniffing unencrypted wifi traffic (i.e. wardriving) has likely seen the exact types of data that's being described. That Google's tools (and I suspect they were re-purposing the same OSS tools we all have access to) during extensive amounts of wardriving is no surprise. The real question is what Google had planned to do with this data.
There are plenty of people who haven't spent any time watching Kismet and ARE surprised at this. It seems to me that this surprise has over-ridden the real question. It's as if Google were the only entities out there doing these things. That their here-unto-unmolested privacy has been pierced by Google's roving gaze. In reality, they've always been exposed and likely exposed to far more than Google's Streetmap vans. But they are keen to lash out at Google.
But again - all this thrashing about is a red herring. The issue really is what Google was doing with this data. It does look like Google was picking up additional information that they weren't interested in. It doesn't look like they were trying to record full sessions and capture sensitive data per se. And if this is so, Google's proper handling and purging of extra data would be a Good Idea. Just as it would be a Good Idea for people to understand the nature of the public networks they put sensitive information on.
At the same time, he is an engineer. He has some idea of the physics involved and mechanics of the vehicles. He can make a reasonable assessment of how the cars would react in a given situation. Meanwhile, he also knows that the traffic is increasing. He can't possibly know what the condition of the driver is. But it's a reasonable assessment that in such an environment, a vehicle traveling at that speed without control is going to cause a lot of damage and risk more than one life. And he is now in front of that out-of-control vehicle in heavy traffic. To do what you propose, he has to maintain or increase his speed and maneuver through heavy traffic far enough away to ensure the swerving vehicle isn't going to hit him as as he slows down so that the danger passes him. All before coming up on the intersection that's "a few hundred yards away." He's in a risky situation no matter what action he takes. His action wasn't entirely irrational.
You must have a high standard for rationality. Fear is a built-in human response. Acting on fear is no different than acting on hunger. Is it irrational to eat when you're hungry?
Well, yes. They're natural survival mechanisms. It doesn't mean they are rational. Rational behavior requires thought and (to some extent) action consistent with one's best interests.
When you're hungry, the rational thing to do is eat something nutritious. Note that hunger itself isn't rational. In some cases, hunger is actually detrimental to our health (we don't always feel "hungry" because we require sustenance). In others, we can respond to hunger in very irrational ways (unhealthy foods, binge eating, and even eating inedible items in rarer cases). That doesn't mean feeling hungry isn't a natural part of our existence.
Fear is also natural. But we can do very irrational things in reaction to that fear. Rational behavior requires recognizing that fear, understanding the survival risk, and then behaving in a manner to ensure survival.
I don't find it particularly odd that someone would experience fear seeing people in traditional middle-eastern garb boarding an aircraft. We've been bombarded by imagery of violent people in the Middle East and Muslims in particular. However, that only represents a small subset of a much larger population. The notion that someone is a threat solely because they dress differently is absurd. Rational behavior is to recognize the fear and discount it if no other information about the situation / person exists to further the notion of a threat.
Man, I can't get enough of these graphics cards stories! Oh yeah!
Just because you're not interested, it doesn't mean someone else isn't. It's like you were driving your car down a highway and you see an exit for a road that's not on your route. You might not care about that exit. But for someone who needs gas at the station on that intersection, that exit is very well timed. That doesn't mean you need to take the exit either. Unless you're just curious and you want to drive around a bit. Then you better fill up anyway because you never know where the next gas station will be.
Seems like a rational fear to have. I would cancel my flight immediately if I observed anyone getting on board that appeared to be of middle eastern origin.
No - fear is not rational. Fear is an irrational survival instinct. Acting on that fear is simply an indication that you are a poor judge of risk.
Just make sure that your Stonehenge monument isn't in danger of being crushed by a dwarf. And consider turning your f-stop up to 11.
Do you not understand how computers work? Because making that transfer over isn't hard.
No - you're the only one.
When will /. readers acknowledge that they're not the entire fucking market for computing devices?
I acknowledge that I am not "the entire fucking market for computing devices." But then, that a market exists doesn't counter all arguments. Lots of people believe there's a Nigerian prince that desperately needs their help. Even more are oblivious to their desktop being a participant in bot net turf wars while feeding the constant traffic of spam. It's not me. But there are plenty of other people who are not me.
I should admit that I picked weighted examples; its a pretty safe bet that nobody is pro-scam or pro-botnet. I was going to pick on the Zune and iPod but that just gets the Zune and iPod fans all riled up. And besides, I've bought iPods as gifts before (nobody has wanted a Zune :P). I thought my wife's iPod was nice and she's been really happy with it. I warned her about the Apple store and DRM but she didn't get what I was telling her - until she moved stuff to her laptop and her DRM-encumbered iTunes stuff didn't transfer over.