If the cops decide they need to search my home due to a crime I'm alleged to have done, they still need to obtain a legal warrant from a court. I expect the same to apply to my car computer. Charge me, get a warrent, and search away. Otherwise hands off. If you're not confident you have a case, you're not entitled to snoop to see what you can come up with.
" Despite having "good" reasons for doing these things, they're still unsafe"
Not necessarily. In many municipalities, speed limits are intentionally set lower than the safe "graded" speed of a given road to generate revenue. Studies have shown that the official "Graded" speed of a given road is close to the speed that the average driver feels comfortable/safe. By setting a lower speed limit, the municipality can generate revenue by ticketing drivers who drive with traffic, or drive at the "comfortable" speed.
It has nothing to do with safety in most cases.
SAFETY would be ALL traffic travelling at the same speed. Ticket the moron who can't read a map who slows down to 15 mph at every intersection looking for the road he's supposed to turn at the same as you do the guy doing 15 over. Same hazard.
However, the car is my private property, and the contents of the computer are not readily accesible to observers (who are not breaking the law). Just as in my home, searching the computer in my car should be protected by the 4th Amendment.
It's not like law enforcement CANT get a court order when necessary. It will just discourage them from routinely snooping where it's not warrented.
Want to search my home? get a warrent. Want to search my computer? do the same. If you don't have justification, you won't get a court to allow it. In the case of a high speed crash, I don't see the court having a problem with issuing a warrant.
Driving may not be a right, but freedom from unwarranted search and seizure still is, as far as I'm aware.
Not to mention gut Fair Use Rights. I imagine the RIAA is drooling at the fictitious income they've convinced themselves people will be throwing at them to buy seperate copies of music they already own licenses for, for every device (no you may not use the same CD in your car that you use in your home stereo, cackles the RIAA harpy).
Thing is, it's fictitious. Even the most ignorant "joe-sixpack" will give them the finger over that.
Agreed. I got a notification in my GEICO renewal that "You might notice an increase in price, please understand that every insurer in florida is doing (blah blah blah)"
I dont' care what the REASON is, you're raising your prices. Stop trying to blame others. In the case of LARGE telcos instituting a $1.50 taxation pass-along, all they're really trying to do is preserve their INSANE profit margins. If it saved jobs, I'd be less displeased, but it's just to make sure the CEO doesn't have to give up his "one -new-yacht-per-year" habit.
CEOs: Don't expect goodwill when you're gaffing the rest of us for your own excess. Sooner or later...
But I don't WANT to accept just "any" connection from the internet. I'll set up the router to accept from where I want to connect from if I have a need. I'm a home user. No one else has any business connecting to my internal machines.
ipv6 isn't commonly used now, and NAT is the only solution for home users. It's a "mexican standoff" People are not going to switch to ip6 until it's widely used, and it won't be widely used until people switch.
I'm not shelling out for new hardware for that purpose either. (I'll probably set up an IPv6 firewall on a Linux box when the time comes though)
My network works for ME today. I don't give a single shit if it "Breaks" things for people that want to peek at my network.
a) I first implemented NAT for a customer of mine in 1995. NAT broke their application, because IP address information was embedded inside the payload. That was my first sign something was wrong with NAT.
Nope. Something was broke with their application.
b) I've seen a 10 000 user network crash because the powersupply in the NAT box failed.
And the network connection wouldn't have blown up if the IPv6 router's powersupply failed? please.
c) Approximately a year ago I spent two _months_ solid working on NAT for VPN solutions There something in the order of 50+ different combinations of VPN toplogogies, and NAT options. It was a Brain F**k.
Sounds like the whole thing is too difficult for you and you're in the wrong line of work.
It's not designed to be easy for a carreer salesman to plug and play. It's designed to do it's job and seperate the PRIVATE address space from the public address space.
All that work could have been avoided by just using unique public address space.
So because you can't grasp relatively simple concepts, we should all reduce our security for your benefit? Sorry, no.
You are indeed a troll. I know real world experience, and the only guys I have ever met who had the kind of "problems" you had are carreer salesmen with minimal technical knowledge trying to function as Sales Engineers, when they're not mentally capable of doing so.
So a black-holed NAT router doesn't prevent port scans on machines inside the LAN from machines outside the firewall? that's news to me.
Preventing port scans might not be bullet proof security, but it beats leaving machines hanging in the breeze for anyone to poke at.
Sorry, I'll stick with NAT + sane security practices. I'm not interested in having someone who brags about breaking into systems poking at my machines. They're not there to satisfy your curiosity, they're my property. If I didn't invite you to probe them, you're specifically prohibited from doing so.
It's just an excellent way to get your IM traffic banned from my company's network. The vast majority will use the "sanctioned" client, but if ANYONE that uses an alternative OS has a problem, I will recommend that IT shut down the offending protocol and provide an alternative. In all likelyhood they will listen to me. We permit IM to further our own goals, not those of other companies. Any useful info they get from the 98% of employees that do use their client we do not begrudge them, but the 2% that don't are our best and brightest. I guarantee you that management isn't going to tell the guys who know the product inside and out to use another client. The other 98% are not going to be loyal enought to quit over an IM choice.
They're our employees, not Yahoo's, not AOL's and damned sure not Microsoft's.
Thanks for the update. I'm checking Portage now. if the Gentoo person responsible for updating GAIM's ebuild is behind, I'll do what I can to expidite.
(just getting the hang of ebuilds but simple version changes should be easy to fix)
I've never gotten spam on Yahoo IM. I don't make myself publically visible. I use it to communicate with co-workers, for whom I don't need to be publically visible.
I prefer to stick to a single client to communicate with multiple networks. I am not going to waste resources on multiple clients. Vendors that don't like that will lose my entire company as users. Yes, I can do that.
GAIM doesnt' profit a lick, and I"m about to be locked out for using it. I'm more than willing to evangelize another IM standard for my company (a very large one, with employees across the world, most of whom use Yahoo client on windows at the moment).
I am a Unix/Linux specialist. I use GAIM on Linux to communicate. If I identify Yahoo as a security risk, Yahoo immediately loses about 5000 registered users and the data they generate.
They would be far better served to let the 15 or so of us who use alternative clients do so. I hold enough sway in the company to get Yahoo completely banned from the corporate WAN. I will not hesitate to do so.
Actually, a high energy return substance, with the proper delay/dampers, would still protect the passengers of the vehicle, but not be so forgiving of those that (presumably) struck the vehicle.
For instance, if someone runs a red light in front of me, I don't particularly care what happens to him (he endangered me, after all, as opposed to the other way around) As long as Im' still protected, I'm quite happy to see my property not self destruct to protect the one who is in the wrong.
I don't give a shit about cheaters. I don't play games with strangers anyhow. I just want to move my KOTOR save from the defective Xbox that MS sold me at release to the one that works right that I just bought. Y'all can work the cheaters thing out amongst yourselves. It matters not to me. If I don't know you, I'm not playing with you. That's how I handle cheating issues.
Unless the other party engages in good-faith negotiations regarding the "contract" I am free to disregard it. In all cases where these "contracts" exist, acceptance is not a condition of purchase. If they (Microsoft, in this case) wish to engage in contractualy obligating their customers, then they may employ attorneys in every venue in which they sell their product to explain their demands to consumers, and pay Notary Publics to ratify each bill of sale. Barring that, they have no rights after the sale of the product.
No. I did not accept it. The dialog that essentially reads "accept this or you can't play the games you paid for" is void because I have not been compensated to my satisfaction for that stipulation. I bought the product, I will use it, and I will take any action against those that would impede me that I feel necessary and expedient to enforce my property rights.
Wrong. Running Linux, at least temporarily, is the only way to transfer some game saves (Knights of the Old Republic, for one) from one Xbox to another. I'm not going to start over because Microsoft sold me a defective piece of hardware to start off with.
Yes it is, asshole. I paid for it, I'll do what I want with it. The clickthrough license will not hold up in court, as it was not reached with fair negotiation. Take it or leave it isn't valid.
It's Mine. I'll do with it what I want.
Hell all _I_ wanted to do with the Linux exploit is move my Knights of the Old Republic save from my old flaky Xbox to the new one. I'll be pursuing action against Microsoft for the defective Xbox now.
It's one of the first-run Hungarian run boxes with bad digital out (no dolby) and DVD read problems. I would have let it slide if I could have copied my save. Now they will have to pay. One way or another.
Slashdot Mirror
If the cops decide they need to search my home due to a crime I'm alleged to have done, they still need to obtain a legal warrant from a court. I expect the same to apply to my car computer. Charge me, get a warrent, and search away. Otherwise hands off. If you're not confident you have a case, you're not entitled to snoop to see what you can come up with.
He's still entitled to freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, which is what searching that box without a warrant entails.
"
Despite having "good" reasons for doing these things, they're still unsafe"
Not necessarily. In many municipalities, speed limits are intentionally set lower than the safe "graded" speed of a given road to generate revenue. Studies have shown that the official "Graded" speed of a given road is close to the speed that the average driver feels comfortable/safe. By setting a lower speed limit, the municipality can generate revenue by ticketing drivers who drive with traffic, or drive at the "comfortable" speed.
It has nothing to do with safety in most cases.
SAFETY would be ALL traffic travelling at the same speed. Ticket the moron who can't read a map who slows down to 15 mph at every intersection looking for the road he's supposed to turn at the same as you do the guy doing 15 over. Same hazard.
However, the car is my private property, and the contents of the computer are not readily accesible to observers (who are not breaking the law). Just as in my home, searching the computer in my car should be protected by the 4th Amendment.
It's not like law enforcement CANT get a court order when necessary. It will just discourage them from routinely snooping where it's not warrented.
Want to search my home? get a warrent. Want to search my computer? do the same. If you don't have justification, you won't get a court to allow it. In the case of a high speed crash, I don't see the court having a problem with issuing a warrant.
Driving may not be a right, but freedom from unwarranted search and seizure still is, as far as I'm aware.
Not to mention gut Fair Use Rights. I imagine the RIAA is drooling at the fictitious income they've convinced themselves people will be throwing at them to buy seperate copies of music they already own licenses for, for every device (no you may not use the same CD in your car that you use in your home stereo, cackles the RIAA harpy).
Thing is, it's fictitious. Even the most ignorant "joe-sixpack" will give them the finger over that.
Then the torches and pitchforks come out...
Agreed. I got a notification in my GEICO renewal that "You might notice an increase in price, please understand that every insurer in florida is doing (blah blah blah)"
I dont' care what the REASON is, you're raising your prices. Stop trying to blame others. In the case of LARGE telcos instituting a $1.50 taxation pass-along, all they're really trying to do is preserve their INSANE profit margins. If it saved jobs, I'd be less displeased, but it's just to make sure the CEO doesn't have to give up his "one -new-yacht-per-year" habit.
CEOs: Don't expect goodwill when you're gaffing the rest of us for your own excess. Sooner or later...
But I don't WANT to accept just "any" connection from the internet. I'll set up the router to accept from where I want to connect from if I have a need. I'm a home user. No one else has any business connecting to my internal machines.
ipv6 isn't commonly used now, and NAT is the only solution for home users. It's a "mexican standoff" People are not going to switch to ip6 until it's widely used, and it won't be widely used until people switch.
I'm not shelling out for new hardware for that purpose either. (I'll probably set up an IPv6 firewall on a Linux box when the time comes though)
My network works for ME today. I don't give a single shit if it "Breaks" things for people that want to peek at my network.
a) I first implemented NAT for a customer of mine in 1995. NAT broke their application, because IP address information was embedded inside the payload. That was my first sign something was wrong with NAT.
Nope. Something was broke with their application. b) I've seen a 10 000 user network crash because the powersupply in the NAT box failed. And the network connection wouldn't have blown up if the IPv6 router's powersupply failed? please. c) Approximately a year ago I spent two _months_ solid working on NAT for VPN solutions There something in the order of 50+ different combinations of VPN toplogogies, and NAT options. It was a Brain F**k. Sounds like the whole thing is too difficult for you and you're in the wrong line of work. It's not designed to be easy for a carreer salesman to plug and play. It's designed to do it's job and seperate the PRIVATE address space from the public address space. All that work could have been avoided by just using unique public address space. So because you can't grasp relatively simple concepts, we should all reduce our security for your benefit? Sorry, no. You are indeed a troll. I know real world experience, and the only guys I have ever met who had the kind of "problems" you had are carreer salesmen with minimal technical knowledge trying to function as Sales Engineers, when they're not mentally capable of doing so.
So a black-holed NAT router doesn't prevent port scans on machines inside the LAN from machines outside the firewall? that's news to me.
Preventing port scans might not be bullet proof security, but it beats leaving machines hanging in the breeze for anyone to poke at.
Sorry, I'll stick with NAT + sane security practices. I'm not interested in having someone who brags about breaking into systems poking at my machines. They're not there to satisfy your curiosity, they're my property. If I didn't invite you to probe them, you're specifically prohibited from doing so.
It's just an excellent way to get your IM traffic banned from my company's network. The vast majority will use the "sanctioned" client, but if ANYONE that uses an alternative OS has a problem, I will recommend that IT shut down the offending protocol and provide an alternative. In all likelyhood they will listen to me. We permit IM to further our own goals, not those of other companies. Any useful info they get from the 98% of employees that do use their client we do not begrudge them, but the 2% that don't are our best and brightest. I guarantee you that management isn't going to tell the guys who know the product inside and out to use another client. The other 98% are not going to be loyal enought to quit over an IM choice.
They're our employees, not Yahoo's, not AOL's and damned sure not Microsoft's.
Thanks for the update. I'm checking Portage now. if the Gentoo person responsible for updating GAIM's ebuild is behind, I'll do what I can to expidite.
(just getting the hang of ebuilds but simple version changes should be easy to fix)
Moron.
I've never gotten spam on Yahoo IM. I don't make myself publically visible. I use it to communicate with co-workers, for whom I don't need to be publically visible.
I prefer to stick to a single client to communicate with multiple networks. I am not going to waste resources on multiple clients. Vendors that don't like that will lose my entire company as users. Yes, I can do that.
GAIM doesnt' profit a lick, and I"m about to be locked out for using it. I'm more than willing to evangelize another IM standard for my company (a very large one, with employees across the world, most of whom use Yahoo client on windows at the moment).
I am a Unix/Linux specialist. I use GAIM on Linux to communicate. If I identify Yahoo as a security risk, Yahoo immediately loses about 5000 registered users and the data they generate.
They would be far better served to let the 15 or so of us who use alternative clients do so. I hold enough sway in the company to get Yahoo completely banned from the corporate WAN. I will not hesitate to do so.
Actually, a high energy return substance, with the proper delay/dampers, would still protect the passengers of the vehicle, but not be so forgiving of those that (presumably) struck the vehicle.
For instance, if someone runs a red light in front of me, I don't particularly care what happens to him (he endangered me, after all, as opposed to the other way around) As long as Im' still protected, I'm quite happy to see my property not self destruct to protect the one who is in the wrong.
I don't give a shit about cheaters. I don't play games with strangers anyhow. I just want to move my KOTOR save from the defective Xbox that MS sold me at release to the one that works right that I just bought. Y'all can work the cheaters thing out amongst yourselves. It matters not to me. If I don't know you, I'm not playing with you. That's how I handle cheating issues.
Unless the other party engages in good-faith negotiations regarding the "contract" I am free to disregard it. In all cases where these "contracts" exist, acceptance is not a condition of purchase. If they (Microsoft, in this case) wish to engage in contractualy obligating their customers, then they may employ attorneys in every venue in which they sell their product to explain their demands to consumers, and pay Notary Publics to ratify each bill of sale. Barring that, they have no rights after the sale of the product.
No. I did not accept it. The dialog that essentially reads "accept this or you can't play the games you paid for" is void because I have not been compensated to my satisfaction for that stipulation. I bought the product, I will use it, and I will take any action against those that would impede me that I feel necessary and expedient to enforce my property rights.
Hosing a customer that blatently is a good way to force yourself to travel by bullet proof limo forever after.
Take away the customer's legal recourse, and they'll find another way to justice.
Wrong. Running Linux, at least temporarily, is the only way to transfer some game saves (Knights of the Old Republic, for one) from one Xbox to another. I'm not going to start over because Microsoft sold me a defective piece of hardware to start off with.
Yes it is, asshole. I paid for it, I'll do what I want with it. The clickthrough license will not hold up in court, as it was not reached with fair negotiation. Take it or leave it isn't valid.
It's Mine. I'll do with it what I want.
Hell all _I_ wanted to do with the Linux exploit is move my Knights of the Old Republic save from my old flaky Xbox to the new one. I'll be pursuing action against Microsoft for the defective Xbox now.
It's one of the first-run Hungarian run boxes with bad digital out (no dolby) and DVD read problems. I would have let it slide if I could have copied my save. Now they will have to pay. One way or another.
Did you read the article? It states quite clearly in Financial terms why it does not always make sense.
the more I think a mass eruption of the entire chain of volcanoes surrounding Redmond would be less-than-tragic.
Because that already happens with most of the phone-equipped drivers I see during the day...