Everything is latency sensitive, take a web page for example, all those elements inside, like those small images, each of those need a new query and get/send command, therefore you are getting 1 second penalty over every item on the page and these per connection lags accumulate resulting in one noticeably slow web experience, but somewhere in upstate Alaska that might be kind of good enough internet solution.
Their hardware/software is smart enough to fix this. It understands unencrypted web pages that have redirects, embedded images, and the like. Web browsing is quite comfortable.
It isn't a normal high latency connection. The software is sophisticated enough to anticipate web requests before you send them. The latency doesn't multiply over things like redirects and referenced images. Of course, that only works over web pages that the accelerator understands. Web browsing is actually quite comfortable. VOIP is basically impossible. Gaming is fine with the exception of first-person shooters.
What kills you are the transfer caps. That's what makes it intolerable.
No. What you are selling is the actual copy, not any license. The recipient may or may not need a license, depending on what they wish to do. The ordinary use of a work does not require a license. That's why, when you buy a book, you don't need a license to read the book.
But if the recipient needs a license to the work, they get it from the original author, as specified in the GPL: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
You are selling the actual copy of the work, not any license to it.
In fact, you can sell any software you lawfully own unless you agreed not to. See 17 USC 109, "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."
I spent $0/month on my dumb phone. The phone was provided by my employer. My wife bought me an Android phone for my birthday a month ago -- two year contract, $200 or so, it seemed kind of silly to me but she couldn't think of anything else to get me. I'd had the same phone for 8 years.
If you had asked me a month ago, I would have sworn I didn't need a smart phone, but it's now indispensable. It has already paid for itself in two ways. One small one -- no more yearly GPS updates. And one big one -- catching an email before a three hour drive allowed me to make a meeting that I otherwise would have missed. It was a good meeting.
Yes, breaching a contract is often a crime in analogous cases. If the contract permits you to do something that would be a crime without permission, then breaching the contract can sometimes be a crime.
Another response to this question gave the example of trespass. If you're permit to access a specific place for a specific reason, accessing that place for another reason may be a crime of trespass. If you rent a car with an agreement to return the car on a particular date, keeping the car well past that date may be a crime akin to theft.
Since using my computer without my permission is a crime akin to trespass, it's not unreasonable that exceeding the granted permission (in a sufficiently serious fashion) could be that same crime akin to trespass. The problem with the CFAA is that it doesn't require the violation to be sufficiently serious.
Right, no other profession except every other profession that consists of creating copyrightable work such as musicians, sculptors, photographers, authors, actors, and so on.
If you're going to credit NASA for all the things the people they trained did after they left NASA, you also have to count against NASA all the things those people would have done had they not worked for NASA. True, if you're going to weigh the costs of the space program against the benefits, you have to include all the benefits. But you have to include all the costs too. NASA drained the country of engineering and scientific talent that could have, and would have, done many other things.
Well, both apply and neither apply. The situation is intermediate between the two. It's important to distinguish Scripto on a very critical point -- Amazon associates have no role whatsoever in taking the order, fulfilling to order, or billing. They are essentially just advertising.
Scripto v. Carson argues the other way. The key point in Scripto v. Carson was that "[t]he only incidence of this sales transaction that is nonlocal is the acceptance of the order." In this case, it is the other way. The only thing that is local is the advertising and the placement of the order. Everything else is outside of California including the acceptance of the order, the production of the product, the fulfillment of the order, and so on.
Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland is more on point. Here, the only contact the company had with the taxing State was that it mailed stuff there, drew customers from there, and advertised there. Amazon Associates are much more like advertisers than salesman.
I'm sure there are some web pages hosted in Zimbabwe that link to Slate articles. How would Slate feel if Zimbabwe placed a 35% tax on all ad revenue they got on their web pages that was attributable to viewers from Zimbabwe? And then what if Monaco passes a different tax on Slate revenues attributable to viewers in Monaco with different reporting requirements. And then Liberia. And then...
Read the EFF's amicus brief. The immunity is for the act of production. All they want is the decrypted contents. They are willing to provide her immunity for the fact of production.
In this case, they only want the decrypted data. They have offered limited immunity for the production. So the fact that she provided the passphrase would not be admissible in court. They are not asking her to testify to any of these facts nor will they use her production of the passphrase to establish any of those facts. All they want is the decrypted data.
The "unencrypted version of a drive that is already known to exist" does not currently exist. You are not being asked to "produce" something that already exists but to create something that does not yet exist.
In this case, the Prosecution offered her production immunity. That means they cannot admit in court the fact that she provided the passphrase. They only seek to use the decrypted contents.
That's precisely what they're agreeing *not* to do. They've specifically agreed that neither the password itself nor the act of producing it will be admissible.
There's a huge difference between these two things. Say, for example, the hard drive contains child pornography. If forced to disclose the passphrase testimonially, that act would prove that she had possession of the contraband. If she is being asked merely to type in the passphrase to decrypt the drive in a situation where that act cannot be admitted testimonially, that act will only prove that there was child pornography on the hard drive, but not that she had access to it or possession of it.
The fifth amendment prohibits compelled testimonial acts. The Prosecutor is offering the defendant a way to decrypt the drive without performing any testimonial acts.
You don't have to say anything that's admissible as testimony. They aren't asking to admit the passphrase as testimony. The fifth amendment only applies to testimonial acts. There are many cases where the government can compel you to give them information -- the requirement that you file income tax returns being an obvious one.
That's why they're not requiring you to reveal your passcode. They're offering a method by which you can decrypt the data but such that no human being other than you will ever know your passcode.
The "key to the safe" is a terrible analogy. The key is a physical object whereas what is requested here is the contents of someone's mind. Here's a better analogy:
Someone confessor to murder under coercion. They give information only the killer would know, so we are 100% sure they're guilty. But that information is inadmissible in court, since it was obtained by force. However, the body hasn't been located and the police hope that with forensic evidence from the body, they can independently prove who the perpetrator was. Of course, when they ask where the body is, the killer refuses to answer. Can the court compel him to reveal the location of the body by simply saying they won't admit into evidence the fact that he told them where the body is?
That is the more accurate analogy. The police want information only the suspect has, not a physical object.
You don't. The mention of a recovery CD is erroneous. The only way to fix the MBR and then restore your system to a previous state is with system restore, not a recovery CD. The thrust of the sentence is that there's a two-step recovery process, first fixing the MBR and then reverting the system to a pre-infected state. The method of doing this is poorly described, but the intention is to tell you what to do, not how to do it.
I agree. That's the only sensible interpretation of what MS is saying. If you're going to do a complete system restore, why go to the trouble of fixing the MBR first?
You can't create two colliding certificates that are signed by any reputable CA since they all now include random material prior to any user-supplied material (for example, by using random serial numbers). So at best someone could compromise their own CA. But someone you choose to trust can always compromise whatever you've entrusted them with. Essentially, the SHA-1 problems have been side-stepped by a CA policy change. This won't apply to any CAs that don't follow this type of policy, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything is latency sensitive, take a web page for example, all those elements inside, like those small images, each of those need a new query and get/send command, therefore you are getting 1 second penalty over every item on the page and these per connection lags accumulate resulting in one noticeably slow web experience, but somewhere in upstate Alaska that might be kind of good enough internet solution.
Their hardware/software is smart enough to fix this. It understands unencrypted web pages that have redirects, embedded images, and the like. Web browsing is quite comfortable.
It isn't a normal high latency connection. The software is sophisticated enough to anticipate web requests before you send them. The latency doesn't multiply over things like redirects and referenced images. Of course, that only works over web pages that the accelerator understands. Web browsing is actually quite comfortable. VOIP is basically impossible. Gaming is fine with the exception of first-person shooters.
What kills you are the transfer caps. That's what makes it intolerable.
No. What you are selling is the actual copy, not any license. The recipient may or may not need a license, depending on what they wish to do. The ordinary use of a work does not require a license. That's why, when you buy a book, you don't need a license to read the book.
But if the recipient needs a license to the work, they get it from the original author, as specified in the GPL: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
You are selling the actual copy of the work, not any license to it.
In fact, you can sell any software you lawfully own unless you agreed not to. See 17 USC 109, "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."
I spent $0/month on my dumb phone. The phone was provided by my employer. My wife bought me an Android phone for my birthday a month ago -- two year contract, $200 or so, it seemed kind of silly to me but she couldn't think of anything else to get me. I'd had the same phone for 8 years.
If you had asked me a month ago, I would have sworn I didn't need a smart phone, but it's now indispensable. It has already paid for itself in two ways. One small one -- no more yearly GPS updates. And one big one -- catching an email before a three hour drive allowed me to make a meeting that I otherwise would have missed. It was a good meeting.
Yes, breaching a contract is often a crime in analogous cases. If the contract permits you to do something that would be a crime without permission, then breaching the contract can sometimes be a crime.
Another response to this question gave the example of trespass. If you're permit to access a specific place for a specific reason, accessing that place for another reason may be a crime of trespass. If you rent a car with an agreement to return the car on a particular date, keeping the car well past that date may be a crime akin to theft.
Since using my computer without my permission is a crime akin to trespass, it's not unreasonable that exceeding the granted permission (in a sufficiently serious fashion) could be that same crime akin to trespass. The problem with the CFAA is that it doesn't require the violation to be sufficiently serious.
Right, no other profession except every other profession that consists of creating copyrightable work such as musicians, sculptors, photographers, authors, actors, and so on.
I'm not saying NASA retarded scientific progress. I'm saying NASA diverted scarce resources that would have went to other things.
If you're going to credit NASA for all the things the people they trained did after they left NASA, you also have to count against NASA all the things those people would have done had they not worked for NASA. True, if you're going to weigh the costs of the space program against the benefits, you have to include all the benefits. But you have to include all the costs too. NASA drained the country of engineering and scientific talent that could have, and would have, done many other things.
Well, both apply and neither apply. The situation is intermediate between the two. It's important to distinguish Scripto on a very critical point -- Amazon associates have no role whatsoever in taking the order, fulfilling to order, or billing. They are essentially just advertising.
Scripto v. Carson argues the other way. The key point in Scripto v. Carson was that "[t]he only incidence of this sales transaction that is nonlocal is the acceptance of the order." In this case, it is the other way. The only thing that is local is the advertising and the placement of the order. Everything else is outside of California including the acceptance of the order, the production of the product, the fulfillment of the order, and so on.
Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland is more on point. Here, the only contact the company had with the taxing State was that it mailed stuff there, drew customers from there, and advertised there. Amazon Associates are much more like advertisers than salesman.
I'm sure there are some web pages hosted in Zimbabwe that link to Slate articles. How would Slate feel if Zimbabwe placed a 35% tax on all ad revenue they got on their web pages that was attributable to viewers from Zimbabwe? And then what if Monaco passes a different tax on Slate revenues attributable to viewers in Monaco with different reporting requirements. And then Liberia. And then ...
Read the EFF's amicus brief. The immunity is for the act of production. All they want is the decrypted contents. They are willing to provide her immunity for the fact of production.
In this case, they only want the decrypted data. They have offered limited immunity for the production. So the fact that she provided the passphrase would not be admissible in court. They are not asking her to testify to any of these facts nor will they use her production of the passphrase to establish any of those facts. All they want is the decrypted data.
The "unencrypted version of a drive that is already known to exist" does not currently exist. You are not being asked to "produce" something that already exists but to create something that does not yet exist.
In this case, the Prosecution offered her production immunity. That means they cannot admit in court the fact that she provided the passphrase. They only seek to use the decrypted contents.
As I made clear in the hypothetical, all they want is forensic evidence they can get from the body.
That's precisely what they're agreeing *not* to do. They've specifically agreed that neither the password itself nor the act of producing it will be admissible.
There's a huge difference between these two things. Say, for example, the hard drive contains child pornography. If forced to disclose the passphrase testimonially, that act would prove that she had possession of the contraband. If she is being asked merely to type in the passphrase to decrypt the drive in a situation where that act cannot be admitted testimonially, that act will only prove that there was child pornography on the hard drive, but not that she had access to it or possession of it.
The fifth amendment prohibits compelled testimonial acts. The Prosecutor is offering the defendant a way to decrypt the drive without performing any testimonial acts.
You don't have to say anything that's admissible as testimony. They aren't asking to admit the passphrase as testimony. The fifth amendment only applies to testimonial acts. There are many cases where the government can compel you to give them information -- the requirement that you file income tax returns being an obvious one.
That's why they're not requiring you to reveal your passcode. They're offering a method by which you can decrypt the data but such that no human being other than you will ever know your passcode.
The "key to the safe" is a terrible analogy. The key is a physical object whereas what is requested here is the contents of someone's mind. Here's a better analogy:
Someone confessor to murder under coercion. They give information only the killer would know, so we are 100% sure they're guilty. But that information is inadmissible in court, since it was obtained by force. However, the body hasn't been located and the police hope that with forensic evidence from the body, they can independently prove who the perpetrator was. Of course, when they ask where the body is, the killer refuses to answer. Can the court compel him to reveal the location of the body by simply saying they won't admit into evidence the fact that he told them where the body is?
That is the more accurate analogy. The police want information only the suspect has, not a physical object.
You don't. The mention of a recovery CD is erroneous. The only way to fix the MBR and then restore your system to a previous state is with system restore, not a recovery CD. The thrust of the sentence is that there's a two-step recovery process, first fixing the MBR and then reverting the system to a pre-infected state. The method of doing this is poorly described, but the intention is to tell you what to do, not how to do it.
I agree. That's the only sensible interpretation of what MS is saying. If you're going to do a complete system restore, why go to the trouble of fixing the MBR first?
You can't create two colliding certificates that are signed by any reputable CA since they all now include random material prior to any user-supplied material (for example, by using random serial numbers). So at best someone could compromise their own CA. But someone you choose to trust can always compromise whatever you've entrusted them with. Essentially, the SHA-1 problems have been side-stepped by a CA policy change. This won't apply to any CAs that don't follow this type of policy, of course.