If laws are passed that make open formats illegal, then we will have a serious problem. Fortunately nearly every U.S. citizen would have a problem with that sort of a law.
Unfortunately, US citizens have, for the most part, had little problem with laws like the DMCA. These are the thin end of the wedge. There will never be a day when CDs and VHS are declared illegal. Instead, content providers will team up with computer and consumer electronics manufacturers (e.g. Sony) to gradually phase out un-trusted media and devices that can play it.
I never see mention of the Social Security system as a form of national ID. Why is that?
Probably because it is one of the most widely abused forms of ID the government issues, and they don't want to answer a bunch of cynical questions about identity theft.
Unlike your local PD, the FBI risks a lot more harm than possible benefit from such a strategy. All it would take is one whistleblower to make the whole thing blow up in their faces.
Please tell me how the local PD does not face the exact same risks as the FBI. The only difference is the scale, but that applies to the crimes as well. In relative terms, it is the same.
But they can convert the data into another format and forward it to anyone they like.
While I agree that it is quixotic from a technological stadpoint, the point of DRM is to render information uncopyable and unconvertable by the recipient.
Thus, a DRM protected eBook can not be copied, shared or converted to another format.
Again, this is the theory. I agree that this is near impossible in practice.
You couldn't totally prevent it, no. However, you could inhibit the large scale sharing of customer databases.
Of course, this is just in theory. I have no faith in the possibility that DRM would ever be implemeted in a way that protected consumers at the expense of the Corporate World's mission to turn us into commodities.
I don't think so. Lawmakers who support the draconian DRM measures will be voted out of office, and they will be replaced with more citizen friendly policies.
Either you don't live in the US, or this is your fist foray into public in several years.
No lawmaker has suffered because of the DMCA.
More DMCA-like laws are on the way.
DIVX failed because there were alternatives still on the market. The industry has learned from this, and future initiatives will include the exclusion of non DRM protects alternatives from the market place.
Future cracking schemes will be relegated to obscurity by laws such as the DMCA (ses DeCSS).
PGP does not prevent the person you send information to from distributing it to a third party. DRM could, conceivably, allow you to share data with the knowledge that the person you share it with can't forward it.
I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. Any kind of news that is reported after it has been digested by writers and editors is bound (one would hope) to be of higher quality that somthing reported at the time or on the scene. Whatever you think of TV shows like 60 Minutes, they are certainly better than the local or national evening news. I think that there are radio shows (on NPR, as you mentioned), web sites (Salon.com, at times) and TV shows (Frontline?) that rival the print media in terms of depth and analysis.
Read the article again. The F.B.I. was hamstrung by it's own bureaucracy, not the law. Moreover, they haven't uncovered any non-circumstancial evidence or any communications between the suspect and the hi-jackers. Finally, even if they had, it would not have set off any alarm bells BEFORE Sept. 11. As such, it would not have prevented anything.
Even if you have a 100-GB hard drive filled to capacity, it would still be fairly easy for the FBI to use it as the basis for a dictionary attack on your password.
I'm not convinced that it would be "fairly easy," though you are certainly right that it is possible. Frankly, I am not so sure that it would be easier than simply cracking the password by brute force. It sounds like the FBI didn't want to bother with that, which is why they used a key-logger.
I can easily fit most of my stuff into 4GB or less.
Therein lies the problem. While I agree that a few GB are sufficient, most people are buying and using MORE storage. As such, it seems unlikely that this will replace spinning platters untill some kind of physical limit is reached with that medium, or RAM becomes cheaper. Neither seems likely to me.
Hopefully, this technology will still be made available to those of us who don't need a 100GB hard drive.
I'm not sure about the details of this case, but in America a judge can grant law enforcement the right to circumvent certain laws. Wiretaps, in general, are also illegal without a judges permission. It is also illegal to for police to enter private property without a warrant (unless there is clear evidence that a crime is in progress at the time).
Most agents know pretty well what they can, and cannot get away with.
True, but that does not mean that they are not going to break the rules. The knowledge that they couldn't use the evidence would in no way deter them from collecting it. It just means that if they find evidence of a crime that is outside of their current scope, they will have to go the extra step of using the illegally obtained evidence to find further evidence legally. Then, it is just a matter of presenting only the untainted evidence in court.
But do they want the whole rest of the world to be able to see the source? Given a choice, I bet they would prefer a system that is completely open to them, and closed to everyone else. )I realize that this is a paradox from a QA standpoint.)
Slashdot Mirror
If laws are passed that make open formats illegal, then we will have a serious problem. Fortunately nearly every U.S. citizen would have a problem with that sort of a law.
Unfortunately, US citizens have, for the most part, had little problem with laws like the DMCA. These are the thin end of the wedge. There will never be a day when CDs and VHS are declared illegal. Instead, content providers will team up with computer and consumer electronics manufacturers (e.g. Sony) to gradually phase out un-trusted media and devices that can play it.
Why don't you log in and post that, Mister Full Disclosure?
I never see mention of the Social Security system as a form of national ID. Why is that?
Probably because it is one of the most widely abused forms of ID the government issues, and they don't want to answer a bunch of cynical questions about identity theft.
No, no, NO!
.how DARE you criticize our government during this time of crisis and national unity behind our leaders?
This time, it's gonna work. You just watch and see!
Oh, and by the way. .
Unlike your local PD, the FBI risks a lot more harm than possible benefit from such a strategy. All it would take is one whistleblower to make the whole thing blow up in their faces.
Please tell me how the local PD does not face the exact same risks as the FBI. The only difference is the scale, but that applies to the crimes as well. In relative terms, it is the same.
But they can convert the data into another format and forward it to anyone they like.
While I agree that it is quixotic from a technological stadpoint, the point of DRM is to render information uncopyable and unconvertable by the recipient.
Thus, a DRM protected eBook can not be copied, shared or converted to another format.
Again, this is the theory. I agree that this is near impossible in practice.
What, pray tell, is Kenshin Ryu Tsui Tsen?
You couldn't totally prevent it, no. However, you could inhibit the large scale sharing of customer databases.
Of course, this is just in theory. I have no faith in the possibility that DRM would ever be implemeted in a way that protected consumers at the expense of the Corporate World's mission to turn us into commodities.
Either you don't live in the US, or this is your fist foray into public in several years.
No lawmaker has suffered because of the DMCA.
More DMCA-like laws are on the way.
DIVX failed because there were alternatives still on the market. The industry has learned from this, and future initiatives will include the exclusion of non DRM protects alternatives from the market place.
Future cracking schemes will be relegated to obscurity by laws such as the DMCA (ses DeCSS).
Have a nice day.
PGP does not prevent the person you send information to from distributing it to a third party. DRM could, conceivably, allow you to share data with the knowledge that the person you share it with can't forward it.
I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. Any kind of news that is reported after it has been digested by writers and editors is bound (one would hope) to be of higher quality that somthing reported at the time or on the scene. Whatever you think of TV shows like 60 Minutes, they are certainly better than the local or national evening news. I think that there are radio shows (on NPR, as you mentioned), web sites (Salon.com, at times) and TV shows (Frontline?) that rival the print media in terms of depth and analysis.
Apparently, you didn't try to download or stream anything from any major sites on Sept. 11.
But think about a thin client...one that you CAN'T install AOL on. That'd clear up a lot of problems right there.
Ha. Soon these thin clients will be the only devices that you can buy, build or operate (think SSSCA), so why worry about securing the network?
Read the article again. The F.B.I. was hamstrung by it's own bureaucracy, not the law. Moreover, they haven't uncovered any non-circumstancial evidence or any communications between the suspect and the hi-jackers. Finally, even if they had, it would not have set off any alarm bells BEFORE Sept. 11. As such, it would not have prevented anything.
Speaking of the onion:
Freedoms Curtailed In Defense Of Liberty
Even if you have a 100-GB hard drive filled to capacity, it would still be fairly easy for the FBI to use it as the basis for a dictionary attack on your password.
I'm not convinced that it would be "fairly easy," though you are certainly right that it is possible. Frankly, I am not so sure that it would be easier than simply cracking the password by brute force. It sounds like the FBI didn't want to bother with that, which is why they used a key-logger.
I can easily fit most of my stuff into 4GB or less.
Therein lies the problem. While I agree that a few GB are sufficient, most people are buying and using MORE storage. As such, it seems unlikely that this will replace spinning platters untill some kind of physical limit is reached with that medium, or RAM becomes cheaper. Neither seems likely to me.
Hopefully, this technology will still be made available to those of us who don't need a 100GB hard drive.
I'm not sure about the details of this case, but in America a judge can grant law enforcement the right to circumvent certain laws. Wiretaps, in general, are also illegal without a judges permission. It is also illegal to for police to enter private property without a warrant (unless there is clear evidence that a crime is in progress at the time).
Well, ummm, how would you get it in there to begin with?
Presumably, the keylogger was installed after PGP was set up. Otherwise, they wouldn't need it.
Then, there is always removable media which could be used to store it using the obfuscation methods mentioned in the threads above.
Do you really want to leave your PGP passphrase lying around in a text file on your computer?
Wouldn't it be fairly easy to obscure? You could hide it within a much larger string of random characters, compile it in an executable, etc.
Most agents know pretty well what they can, and cannot get away with.
True, but that does not mean that they are not going to break the rules. The knowledge that they couldn't use the evidence would in no way deter them from collecting it. It just means that if they find evidence of a crime that is outside of their current scope, they will have to go the extra step of using the illegally obtained evidence to find further evidence legally. Then, it is just a matter of presenting only the untainted evidence in court.
I used to build entire cities out of base parts until lego started commercializing them with "special parts".
Just don't use that special "entire-city-in-one" part.
But do they want the whole rest of the world to be able to see the source? Given a choice, I bet they would prefer a system that is completely open to them, and closed to everyone else. )I realize that this is a paradox from a QA standpoint.)
Well if the NSA says it, it must be true.
But seriously, I was merely saying that while Linux may be very good at security, from an ideological standpoint it is likely to see resistance.
I would imagine that many governmental types, particularly in security, would see "open Source" as antithetical to their mission of keeping secrets.
While it may be true that society is better off with full disclosure, this is certainly not our governments attitude about much of anything.