The intimidation factor present was not unusual or uncalled for. When a raid happens, the safety of everyone depends on the ability of the officers to lock down the premises and control the actions of everyone inside. That means moving quickly and with sufficient force that no one even contemplates active resistance. That also means that, in the overwhelming majority of raids, the subject of the raid feels terribly picked on because of the excessive government resources directed at them and how the whole situation makes them feel. I'm sorry about that but it's necessary. The alternative (trying to more-precisely balance the forces brought to bear with the perceived level of potential resistance) would mean that when the government makes a mistake and underestimates the resistance to be encountered, bullets start flying and people start dying. Saving most people in most raids from feeling intimidated by using less force and manpower isn't worth the cost of occasionally getting into a shootout.
This argument is based on the premise that the error of using excessive force doesn't precipitate fights that would otherwise have been avoided. One need only compare the results of the local sherrif's visits to Koresh & Co (courteous and professional resolution of the issue at hand) and those of the BATF's visit (eighty-six bodies on the deck) to refute this notion.
Given that an error in either direction can produce tragic results, the only responsible policy is to calibrate the application of force to the threat level. A mistake in judgment can get people killed, but that's life -- the Universe is going to continue handing out death sentences for poor judgment no matter what you or I think.
After all, as we saw in 1998 and 1999 with the Senate hearings investigating the IRS, just because people tell a sad story doesn't mean it's true. (FYI for those of you who didn't already know - In the months since the IRS hearings, the star witnesses have basically been shown to have been lying their asses off.)
Your evidence for this rather irresponsible assertion (you are accusing people of perjury and slander, which is itself slanderous if untrue) disappeared somewhere between your keyboard and my screen /.
Fair enough. I will amend my previous argument to:
When something is complicated (in either technology or law), it's because somebody screwed it up, because somebody is blowing smoke, or because the desired result inherently requires lots of nit-picking detail to achieve the desired effect.
The difference is that techies are more likely to encounter the blown-smoke alternative in the field of law (e.g. the obviously bogus arguments in support of crypto regs) than the reverse (while techies do blow their share of smoke, it's generally targeted at PHBs, not lawyers or politicians). /.
CDA - attempting to censor internet sites in places where they have no jurisdiction
They have no jurisdiction for that anywhere, unless the words "Congress Shall Make No Law", like the word "is", have a range of alternative meanings known only to politicians. /.
I believe that there is FAR more to understand within the various laws lawyers understand than in the technology we techies know.
When technology is complicated, it's because somebody screwed up or because the Universe requires many precise steps to achieve the desired effect.
When law is complicated, it's because somebody screwed up or because somebody is hiding a special-interest advantage behind blue smoke and mirrors.
In the former case, it's simply a matter of correcting screwups, which is inherent to the human condition in all fields of endeavor.
As for the latter case, denouncing the Universe is pointless, whereas denouncing special-interest advantage is the first step toward abolishing it. Thus, complaints about the complexity of technology and complaints about the complexity of law are neither logically nor morally equivalent. /.
It seems that Geller's name is becoming a general term for "psychic", at least in Japan.
It reminds me this story: a few months ago Dr. Bernard Lewinisky (Monica's father) got upset when the TV Show Law & Order: Special Victims Unit used "lewinsky" as a colloquialism for oral sex. Annoying, but probably not actionable (at least under US law; I don't know about Japan) given proof that the name is in general use as a common word. /.
The Broken Window Fallacy
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 2
If anything, a problem of this magnitude that requires nearly a trillion dollars in fixes would have pulled us out of a recession or at least kept it from getting worse. Just like WWII, all it took was for something to require billions and billions of dollars to be spent on something. The ripple effects of all that money would create jobs all over the place.
This argument is "the fallacy of the broken window". By this reasoning, a street punk who thinks it's kewl to break windows should be hailed as a public benefactor, since he creates jobs for glaziers.
Obviously, this reasoning must be fundamentally flawed, since it leads inescapably to an absurd conclusion. The flaw was pointed out by economist Frederick Bastiat in the essay "That Which is Seen, and that Which is Not Seen". Yes, destruction creates jobs for those who are hired to repair it, but this drains money that otherwise would have been spent on new goods and services. The fact that the former is seen while the latter is unseen leads to the fallacy. /.
On a fundamental level, the.sigline did not mix another issue into it. Either one has the right to possess and use tools for legitimate purposes, or one does not. /.
Even mandatory security measures that are carefully designed and harshly watched for abuse
Yes, and if we lived in a world where government agents were generally watched for abuses and punished severely (much more severely than a private citizen committing a similar offense, in recognition of their higher level of responsibility) when they perpetrated them, there would be a case to be made.
In summary, get back to me when Lon Horiuchi is making big boulders into little pebbles. /.
I'm glad that you've found a security officer somewhere who acts like Officer Friendly. The ones I meet in the real world act a lot more like NightWatch.
Here we see one of the standard problems with faith in government power -- its workings are always presented on the assumption that it will be wielded in a just and responsible manner. Skepticism toward this assumption is never addressed by sound argument (perhaps because no such argument has ever survived collision with historical fact), but by caricature of the skeptic's position (as in the opening paragraphs of KahunaBurger's post). /.
Our protective measures need to advance as the rest of technology advances.
The government wants its (allegedly) protective measures to advance as fast as possible while freezing our personal protective measures (e.g. crypto regs, to use an example familiar to most/.ers). If permitted to do so, the government would create a situation in which technological advance functioned as a one-way ratchet, expanding its own power with no countervailing offsets favoring the individual. /.
Do you seriously mean this? Do you honestly think that the minor disclosures we make for something as optional as flying in an airplane are worse than what hostages go through or the death and injuries people have suffered at the hands of terrorists?
Absolutely.
To prove it, simply ask the question: If the armed forces of Scanneria were to invade the United States with the agenda of replacing the current government with an otherwise identical regime in which there were no Fourth Amendment, and one hundred (to pick a number considerably larger than the average annual death toll from airline terrorism) American soldiers died repelling the invasion, should these soldiers be regarded as fallen heroes or as suckers whose lives were thrown away for no good reason? /.
If I was living under effective marshal law, as has happened in some countries with a more widespread terrorism, I would feel that the balance had shifted too far, perhaps.
Newspeak-to-English Translation: When the government initiates a crackdown intended to target those people, it's good; when the government initiates a crackdown intended to target my people, it's bad. /.
I am a little tired of those who shamelessly promote hacks of encryption codes as a triumph of good versus evil. You are not the champions of the oppressed that you think you are - you're simply providing the means for people to steal what is not rightfully theirs.
Your explanation of how an tool for creating a Linux DVD driver comprises "the means for people to steal what is not rightfully theirs" vanished somewhere between your keyboard and my screen. Would you care to repost it?
Be that as it may, the possible use of DeCSS to bootleg DVDs is no more relevant than the possible use of a Swiss Army Knife to burgle or murder.
You understand the technology well enough to realize that the hack will allow the illegal DVD factories in Asia to thrive.
As has been repeatedly pointed out on/., the illegal DVD factories in Asia (or any of the other six continents where they may happen to reside) simply copy the DVD bit-by-bit, encryption keys and all, without using DeCSS. /.
OTOH, a small percentage of non-Linux users might sign the petition out of sympathy or hope of positive side effects (e.g. a stronger Linux presence might force Micros~1 to deliever better products). /.
But a small minority in the business community want to lock down the information, citing that it's a trade secret.
The difference between a trade secret and a copyright or patent is that a trade secret is not disclosed to the public -- but if it leaks, the owner is just SOL. If they're taking the position that their decryption is a trade secret, then they have no case. /.
Offering products for sale on the internet constitutes a nation-wide purchasing opportunity
The interstate commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate actual interstate commerce, not every possible "opportunity" for interstate commerce, "effect" upon interstate commerce, etc. Nebulous interpretation of the interstate commerce clause is one of the main lockpicks used by the Feds to escape their Constitutional cage.
Congress may lawfully regulate each specific instance in which a drug, or anything else, is taken from State A to State B. However, this is not a general power to regulate the marketing of drugs, or anything else, in general. /.
You do realize any piece of software can generate a completely Unique number in any number of ways and do the same things with it as any hardware number, right?
Anything in software can be erased (repeatedly wipe-erased, if you really want to be sure) by the user, after which it is inaccessible to crackers because it simply no longer exists. This is not the case with an embedded chip ID.
This implies a certain lack of worth for said feature, but it also implies complete harmlessness for those with even the vaguest clue.
Someone who is unclear on the concept that software is fundamentally different from hardware is in a remarkably poor position to lecture people about their cluefulness level. /.
First, the Processor ID in PIII's can be turned off. TURN THE GODDAMN THING OFF if you don't like it.
If you'd bothered to inform yourself about the issue, you'd know that the alleged "off" switch can be cracked. Thus, your statement is as inane as a spammer's "remove" instructions. /.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing I don't work at home -- OSHA definitely would have nixed that GalaxyQuest crusher corridor I was planning to install....
/.
This argument is based on the premise that the error of using excessive force doesn't precipitate fights that would otherwise have been avoided. One need only compare the results of the local sherrif's visits to Koresh & Co (courteous and professional resolution of the issue at hand) and those of the BATF's visit (eighty-six bodies on the deck) to refute this notion.
Given that an error in either direction can produce tragic results, the only responsible policy is to calibrate the application of force to the threat level. A mistake in judgment can get people killed, but that's life -- the Universe is going to continue handing out death sentences for poor judgment no matter what you or I think.
After all, as we saw in 1998 and 1999 with the Senate hearings investigating the IRS, just because people tell a sad story doesn't mean it's true. (FYI for those of you who didn't already know - In the months since the IRS hearings, the star witnesses have basically been shown to have been lying their asses off.)
Your evidence for this rather irresponsible assertion (you are accusing people of perjury and slander, which is itself slanderous if untrue) disappeared somewhere between your keyboard and my screen
/.
...the government hates competition.
/.
When something is complicated (in either technology or law), it's because somebody screwed it up, because somebody is blowing smoke, or because the desired result inherently requires lots of nit-picking detail to achieve the desired effect.
The difference is that techies are more likely to encounter the blown-smoke alternative in the field of law (e.g. the obviously bogus arguments in support of crypto regs) than the reverse (while techies do blow their share of smoke, it's generally targeted at PHBs, not lawyers or politicians).
/.
They have no jurisdiction for that anywhere, unless the words "Congress Shall Make No Law", like the word "is", have a range of alternative meanings known only to politicians.
/.
When technology is complicated, it's because somebody screwed up or because the Universe requires many precise steps to achieve the desired effect.
When law is complicated, it's because somebody screwed up or because somebody is hiding a special-interest advantage behind blue smoke and mirrors.
In the former case, it's simply a matter of correcting screwups, which is inherent to the human condition in all fields of endeavor.
As for the latter case, denouncing the Universe is pointless, whereas denouncing special-interest advantage is the first step toward abolishing it. Thus, complaints about the complexity of technology and complaints about the complexity of law are neither logically nor morally equivalent.
/.
From the lack of typos and extraneous characters, I gather that either she's not doing it right or you need to see a doctor.
/.
It reminds me this story: a few months ago Dr. Bernard Lewinisky (Monica's father) got upset when the TV Show Law & Order: Special Victims Unit used "lewinsky" as a colloquialism for oral sex. Annoying, but probably not actionable (at least under US law; I don't know about Japan) given proof that the name is in general use as a common word.
/.
This argument is "the fallacy of the broken window". By this reasoning, a street punk who thinks it's kewl to break windows should be hailed as a public benefactor, since he creates jobs for glaziers.
Obviously, this reasoning must be fundamentally flawed, since it leads inescapably to an absurd conclusion. The flaw was pointed out by economist Frederick Bastiat in the essay "That Which is Seen, and that Which is Not Seen". Yes, destruction creates jobs for those who are hired to repair it, but this drains money that otherwise would have been spent on new goods and services. The fact that the former is seen while the latter is unseen leads to the fallacy.
/.
On a fundamental level, the .sigline did not mix another issue into it. Either one has the right to possess and use tools for legitimate purposes, or one does not.
/.
Yes, and if we lived in a world where government agents were generally watched for abuses and punished severely (much more severely than a private citizen committing a similar offense, in recognition of their higher level of responsibility) when they perpetrated them, there would be a case to be made.
In summary, get back to me when Lon Horiuchi is making big boulders into little pebbles.
/.
Because it has proven to be a generally ineffective strategy. That's the only factor that has ever abolished a bad idea in the long run.
/.
Here we see one of the standard problems with faith in government power -- its workings are always presented on the assumption that it will be wielded in a just and responsible manner. Skepticism toward this assumption is never addressed by sound argument (perhaps because no such argument has ever survived collision with historical fact), but by caricature of the skeptic's position (as in the opening paragraphs of KahunaBurger's post).
/.
The government wants its (allegedly) protective measures to advance as fast as possible while freezing our personal protective measures (e.g. crypto regs, to use an example familiar to most /.ers). If permitted to do so, the government would create a situation in which technological advance functioned as a one-way ratchet, expanding its own power with no countervailing offsets favoring the individual.
/.
I'd give a respectful hearing to the answer of an official who sat under such a scanner for 24 hours while it ran at full power.
/.
Absolutely.
To prove it, simply ask the question: If the armed forces of Scanneria were to invade the United States with the agenda of replacing the current government with an otherwise identical regime in which there were no Fourth Amendment, and one hundred (to pick a number considerably larger than the average annual death toll from airline terrorism) American soldiers died repelling the invasion, should these soldiers be regarded as fallen heroes or as suckers whose lives were thrown away for no good reason?
/.
Newspeak-to-English Translation: When the government initiates a crackdown intended to target those people, it's good; when the government initiates a crackdown intended to target my people, it's bad.
/.
Your explanation of how an tool for creating a Linux DVD driver comprises "the means for people to steal what is not rightfully theirs" vanished somewhere between your keyboard and my screen. Would you care to repost it?
Be that as it may, the possible use of DeCSS to bootleg DVDs is no more relevant than the possible use of a Swiss Army Knife to burgle or murder.
You understand the technology well enough to realize that the hack will allow the illegal DVD factories in Asia to thrive.
As has been repeatedly pointed out on /., the illegal DVD factories in Asia (or any of the other six continents where they may happen to reside) simply copy the DVD bit-by-bit, encryption keys and all, without using DeCSS.
/.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find the 2000 Babylon 5 calendar, so I settled for a cat calendar instead.
/.
OTOH, a small percentage of non-Linux users might sign the petition out of sympathy or hope of positive side effects (e.g. a stronger Linux presence might force Micros~1 to deliever better products).
/.
Er, because it makes sense to have a Plan B in case Plan A (relying on the basic sanity of other nuclear states) doesn't work?
/.
The difference between a trade secret and a copyright or patent is that a trade secret is not disclosed to the public -- but if it leaks, the owner is just SOL. If they're taking the position that their decryption is a trade secret, then they have no case.
/.
The interstate commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate actual interstate commerce, not every possible "opportunity" for interstate commerce, "effect" upon interstate commerce, etc. Nebulous interpretation of the interstate commerce clause is one of the main lockpicks used by the Feds to escape their Constitutional cage.
Congress may lawfully regulate each specific instance in which a drug, or anything else, is taken from State A to State B. However, this is not a general power to regulate the marketing of drugs, or anything else, in general.
/.
Anything in software can be erased (repeatedly wipe-erased, if you really want to be sure) by the user, after which it is inaccessible to crackers because it simply no longer exists. This is not the case with an embedded chip ID.
This implies a certain lack of worth for said feature, but it also implies complete harmlessness for those with even the vaguest clue.
Someone who is unclear on the concept that software is fundamentally different from hardware is in a remarkably poor position to lecture people about their cluefulness level.
/.
If you'd bothered to inform yourself about the issue, you'd know that the alleged "off" switch can be cracked. Thus, your statement is as inane as a spammer's "remove" instructions.
/.