1) Encryption is significant. It signifies that you have taken steps to protect your data (and hence your privacy). It is the digital equivalent to a lock. It doesn't matter that a physical lock is pickable. The presence of the lock indicates to the person walking by that this gate is protected. The same principle is applied.
This is also the reason why many geeks don't understand why some companies are happy with weak encryption protection in their products. The very act of encryption, even if it is using a 56-bit key that had been uploaded onto rapidshare, communicates to the recipient - "you must be authorized to view this data". The law places great emphasis on this.
2) I never said anything about "might". The law concerns itself quite a lot with pragmatism. It is easy for the AP owner to secure his wireless transmissions. Therefore, his failure to do so indicates that he does not expect his data to remain private when transmitted in this fashion in the clear.
Conversely, if somebody is worried that his infrared transmission being visible from the outside, he or she would need to cover his house with space-grade heat foil, at great expense, and probably ruin the aesthetics of his house, to the objections of his neighbors. Therefore, in this case, we cannot take the lack of precautions to mean the lack of expectation of privacy.
3) In any case, what we have been discussing is peripheral to the actual issue. Directive 95/46/EC, which is what Google was accused violating, is incredibly vague, together with the issue that it has to be transposed into national law before it takes effect against private organizations (like Google). Many transposition of EU directives have discrepancies, and this includes the UK's Data Protection Act 1998, which transposed the above directive. With regards to the DPA 1998, it is arguable whether Google's storage of WIFI frames can be construed as "collecting" in the sense of the DPA 1998 as the data in the payload portion is only "incidental". Furthermore, it is likely to be exempted from many of the requirements due to it being used for statistical purposes as per s33 of the DPA 1998.
From what you said, the logical conclusion is that the strict gun control laws are a response to the high homicide rates. To prove the reverse you must establish that an *increase* in gun availability in the general population deters homicides, which is not what you said.
Japanese-Americans may have a low homicide rate, but that may be due to the social economic-class rather than any real cultural phenomenon. It would be good to cross-tabulate the data to see what the results are but I am confident that Japanese-American would have a *similar* homicide rate to their mainstream peers in the same social-economic class (maybe with geographical adjustments as well).
Being obnoxious doesn't make you right. Privacy violations requires that the victim have reasonable expectation of privacy in the first place. The courts usually decide reasonableness using a objective test (while negligence, for example, can be either objective or subjective). This is usually done by hypothesizing the stance of a "reasonable man" (or woman) with understanding of the subject, but not a specialist. In this case, it means that they should understand the fundamentals of how the apparatus they are operating works, and the difference of whether something is encrypted or not is definitely something to be considered.
Your infrared example does not make any sense. It is impractical for you to shield your infrared signatures in your day-to-day activities, while turning on encryption on wireless networks is not only easy, but highly recommended both as a service provider and a user.
You're making a extremely dangerous assumption here in implying guilt for a crime that doesn't exist. You need to have a reasonable expectation of privacy to get protection from privacy law. It would be extremely difficult to argue that you can reasonably expect privacy when you are sending data in the clear on unencrypted WIFI networks. No doubt that in court, this will be thrown out after a bit of grandstanding from the prosecution.
The lady that sued Google was in Japan, it was probably because the UK press reported on that you remembered it wrongly.
The whole thing with streetview privacy violation thing is media hype. If you're doing things which can be seen in public, you have a very slight chance that somebody will be capturing it on camera. This something everybody have to accept when being in public view. There's a reason why people don't have sex in their front lawns. If you're transmitting data in the clear on unlicensed frequencies, then there is a slight chance that somebody will come around with airsnort and capture your frames. This is something everybody that is using unencrypted WIFI has to accept.
On the whole, the documentaries that the BBC produces is better than any other broadcaster, public or private in any other country in the anglosphere. I've lived in 4, and the BBC produces the best "factual" programming by far.
The application main loop runs in a VM (as per all Android apps), but the native parts of the application runs, well, natively. According to your interpretation, there is no benefit to using the NDK at all, which is, well.... incorrect..
The elephant is in the room but nobody acknowledges it. Intel can backport their OSS drivers to (relatively recent, but still) older kernels, but they chose not to. That is the root of the problem, not the lack of a stable ABI. The lack of a stable ABI keeps Linux source-based rather than binary-based. Linux is all about having driver source available!
Actually, netbook manufacturers were "incentivised" by MS into shipping XP (and then Win7) for netbooks. They have tremendous leverage as these manufacturers need the OEM licensing that MS provides for a range of other products as well and does not want to damage that relationship.
Eventually Android tablets and the iPad will obliterate netbooks sales. We can already see a glut of netbooks this year, unsold for the Xmas season. Chrome OS will probably pick up most of the slack when it does come out if it offers a more seamless experience for the younger generation that uses computers permanently online.
You hit the nail on the head, the way to keep people honest is to pit man against man and make sure that there is enough impartiality in the system for this adversarial system of checks and balances to be effective.
They could have retained packet data to do statistical analysis on the type of communications occurring for example, but did not delete the data afterwards (which is the most likely explanation). There is nothing against any law that allows you to collect unencrypted transmissions in the clear on unlicensed public spectrum. It is given that in such cases, there is no presumption of privacy. In fact, the AG of Connecticut is probably on a fishing expedition to see if the can find any additional cause of action to build up a case. Grandstanding is the best description of this activity. Maybe some sort of strict statutory violation hidden away somewhere.
I don't know about you but I rarely receive tarballs, rpms or debs from friends to compile or install on IM or facebook. That's the good thing about the repository system, where there is a (hopefully) trusted source where you install the majority of your applications.
I can't really see socially engineered malware taking off under Linux, really.
You're putting words in my mouth. I was just illustrating the complexity of the consent as a concept in law.
In the scenario above, what would happen is that the procedure may be cut short, but would nevertheless continue until the patient is no longer at risk of life or injury. This may, of course (in fact, likely to), involve the re-administration of general anaesthetic. This brings up even more fundamental questions as to what is consent if you're in a reduced capacity to judge, and what happens to withdrawn consent when one has to be re-incapacitated for her own good.
R v Brown concerned OAPA, which is statute. The importance is how the courts interpret the law, whether it is from statute or the common law.
In S1(1)(b) of SOSA, it is stated that "reasonable belief" must exist for consent. So it follows that a reasonable belief that consent was withdrawn (for ss 3) must also exist. This may be either objective (more likely), or subjective. In any case, how the courts interpret the law and apply the law to the fact determine the final judicial decision.
Assuming that the Swedish law on this is similar to the Scots law, the facts for the case at this moment in time does not appear to be very favourable to the prosecution. On a balance of probabilities, it is hard to prove that consent was "reasonably" withdrawn just by accusation from the claimant alone, especially after so much time had elapsed after the act in question.
Consent in law is a very complicated subject in law. Depending on circumstances the withdrawal of consent for a activity that is in-progress may be void. For example, if you consent to be operated on but your anaesthetic wore off and woke up, you cannot suddenly withdraw consent.
On the other hand, private activities between consenting adults may be deemed to be against the public good and the consent found to be void. See the case of R v Brown.
The idea of consent being a legal defence, or if it actually negates the actus reus is often debated subject in law. There is more to it than just, "was there consent?", which is what people here seem to be so preoccupied with. The lack of quality in the Slashdot army of armchair legal scholars is a bit disappointing.
I'm guessing Microsoft used the patent suit to coerce HTC into making a bigger push with WP7 than they would of otherwise. Microsoft could see the writing on the wall as most of HTC revenue was coming from Android phones which were selling like hotcakes. It was in MS' interest to keep HTC in check. I don't see it being in MS' best interest to antagonize a WP7 launch partner with excessive royalties on HTC core products.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Encryption is significant. It signifies that you have taken steps to protect your data (and hence your privacy). It is the digital equivalent to a lock. It doesn't matter that a physical lock is pickable. The presence of the lock indicates to the person walking by that this gate is protected. The same principle is applied.
This is also the reason why many geeks don't understand why some companies are happy with weak encryption protection in their products. The very act of encryption, even if it is using a 56-bit key that had been uploaded onto rapidshare, communicates to the recipient - "you must be authorized to view this data". The law places great emphasis on this.
2) I never said anything about "might". The law concerns itself quite a lot with pragmatism. It is easy for the AP owner to secure his wireless transmissions. Therefore, his failure to do so indicates that he does not expect his data to remain private when transmitted in this fashion in the clear.
Conversely, if somebody is worried that his infrared transmission being visible from the outside, he or she would need to cover his house with space-grade heat foil, at great expense, and probably ruin the aesthetics of his house, to the objections of his neighbors. Therefore, in this case, we cannot take the lack of precautions to mean the lack of expectation of privacy.
3) In any case, what we have been discussing is peripheral to the actual issue. Directive 95/46/EC, which is what Google was accused violating, is incredibly vague, together with the issue that it has to be transposed into national law before it takes effect against private organizations (like Google). Many transposition of EU directives have discrepancies, and this includes the UK's Data Protection Act 1998, which transposed the above directive. With regards to the DPA 1998, it is arguable whether Google's storage of WIFI frames can be construed as "collecting" in the sense of the DPA 1998 as the data in the payload portion is only "incidental". Furthermore, it is likely to be exempted from many of the requirements due to it being used for statistical purposes as per s33 of the DPA 1998.
From what you said, the logical conclusion is that the strict gun control laws are a response to the high homicide rates. To prove the reverse you must establish that an *increase* in gun availability in the general population deters homicides, which is not what you said.
Japanese-Americans may have a low homicide rate, but that may be due to the social economic-class rather than any real cultural phenomenon. It would be good to cross-tabulate the data to see what the results are but I am confident that Japanese-American would have a *similar* homicide rate to their mainstream peers in the same social-economic class (maybe with geographical adjustments as well).
In short - statistics, learn it.
Being obnoxious doesn't make you right. Privacy violations requires that the victim have reasonable expectation of privacy in the first place. The courts usually decide reasonableness using a objective test (while negligence, for example, can be either objective or subjective). This is usually done by hypothesizing the stance of a "reasonable man" (or woman) with understanding of the subject, but not a specialist. In this case, it means that they should understand the fundamentals of how the apparatus they are operating works, and the difference of whether something is encrypted or not is definitely something to be considered.
Your infrared example does not make any sense. It is impractical for you to shield your infrared signatures in your day-to-day activities, while turning on encryption on wireless networks is not only easy, but highly recommended both as a service provider and a user.
You're making a extremely dangerous assumption here in implying guilt for a crime that doesn't exist. You need to have a reasonable expectation of privacy to get protection from privacy law. It would be extremely difficult to argue that you can reasonably expect privacy when you are sending data in the clear on unencrypted WIFI networks. No doubt that in court, this will be thrown out after a bit of grandstanding from the prosecution.
Talk about a double standard.
The lady that sued Google was in Japan, it was probably because the UK press reported on that you remembered it wrongly.
The whole thing with streetview privacy violation thing is media hype. If you're doing things which can be seen in public, you have a very slight chance that somebody will be capturing it on camera. This something everybody have to accept when being in public view. There's a reason why people don't have sex in their front lawns. If you're transmitting data in the clear on unlicensed frequencies, then there is a slight chance that somebody will come around with airsnort and capture your frames. This is something everybody that is using unencrypted WIFI has to accept.
Let me guess.. Radio 4 listener...
On the whole, the documentaries that the BBC produces is better than any other broadcaster, public or private in any other country in the anglosphere. I've lived in 4, and the BBC produces the best "factual" programming by far.
The application main loop runs in a VM (as per all Android apps), but the native parts of the application runs, well, natively. According to your interpretation, there is no benefit to using the NDK at all, which is, well.... incorrect..
The elephant is in the room but nobody acknowledges it. Intel can backport their OSS drivers to (relatively recent, but still) older kernels, but they chose not to. That is the root of the problem, not the lack of a stable ABI. The lack of a stable ABI keeps Linux source-based rather than binary-based. Linux is all about having driver source available!
It's the same distinction between fascism and capitalism.
In capitalism, the market players are small and numerous, and have little to no effect on the political or regulatory environment as a single polity.
In fascism, there are few large players that control the markets, and controls in-effect the political and regulatory environment.
That's how it works, from a economic point of view.
There is a movement dedicated to forwarding what you identify as corporatism.
- Fascism -
When corporations take over the government of a nation-state, what we get is a fascist state.
Actually, netbook manufacturers were "incentivised" by MS into shipping XP (and then Win7) for netbooks. They have tremendous leverage as these manufacturers need the OEM licensing that MS provides for a range of other products as well and does not want to damage that relationship.
Eventually Android tablets and the iPad will obliterate netbooks sales. We can already see a glut of netbooks this year, unsold for the Xmas season. Chrome OS will probably pick up most of the slack when it does come out if it offers a more seamless experience for the younger generation that uses computers permanently online.
They only appeal to two types of developers -
Business types who know programming
Software engineers that put $$$ before their profession
You hit the nail on the head, the way to keep people honest is to pit man against man and make sure that there is enough impartiality in the system for this adversarial system of checks and balances to be effective.
Accidentially != intentionally
They could have retained packet data to do statistical analysis on the type of communications occurring for example, but did not delete the data afterwards (which is the most likely explanation). There is nothing against any law that allows you to collect unencrypted transmissions in the clear on unlicensed public spectrum. It is given that in such cases, there is no presumption of privacy. In fact, the AG of Connecticut is probably on a fishing expedition to see if the can find any additional cause of action to build up a case. Grandstanding is the best description of this activity. Maybe some sort of strict statutory violation hidden away somewhere.
Yes, and as a group, most would probably fall under the annual income threshold required to pay income tax in most states.
I don't know about you but I rarely receive tarballs, rpms or debs from friends to compile or install on IM or facebook. That's the good thing about the repository system, where there is a (hopefully) trusted source where you install the majority of your applications.
I can't really see socially engineered malware taking off under Linux, really.
Every single other industrialized country has some sort of universal healthcare, most of which provide a better medical outcome than the US.
Your point is not only tired, it's also an outright lie.
And you know it.
You're putting words in my mouth. I was just illustrating the complexity of the consent as a concept in law.
In the scenario above, what would happen is that the procedure may be cut short, but would nevertheless continue until the patient is no longer at risk of life or injury. This may, of course (in fact, likely to), involve the re-administration of general anaesthetic. This brings up even more fundamental questions as to what is consent if you're in a reduced capacity to judge, and what happens to withdrawn consent when one has to be re-incapacitated for her own good.
Can you cite case law regarding this? I read this a few times and it is obvious that s1(1) is meant to be read that (a) AND (b) is required. Not OR.
Read it carefully, you need both lack of consent *and* lack of a reasonable belief of consent in order to have met the definition of rape.
So if you withdraw your consent, you also have to communicate to A so that his "reasonable belief" of consent is extinguished.
R v Brown concerned OAPA, which is statute. The importance is how the courts interpret the law, whether it is from statute or the common law.
In S1(1)(b) of SOSA, it is stated that "reasonable belief" must exist for consent. So it follows that a reasonable belief that consent was withdrawn (for ss 3) must also exist. This may be either objective (more likely), or subjective. In any case, how the courts interpret the law and apply the law to the fact determine the final judicial decision.
Assuming that the Swedish law on this is similar to the Scots law, the facts for the case at this moment in time does not appear to be very favourable to the prosecution. On a balance of probabilities, it is hard to prove that consent was "reasonably" withdrawn just by accusation from the claimant alone, especially after so much time had elapsed after the act in question.
Wilson distinguished Brown, but Emmett pretty much affirmed it. Brown is still good law, unfortunately.
Consent in law is a very complicated subject in law. Depending on circumstances the withdrawal of consent for a activity that is in-progress may be void. For example, if you consent to be operated on but your anaesthetic wore off and woke up, you cannot suddenly withdraw consent.
On the other hand, private activities between consenting adults may be deemed to be against the public good and the consent found to be void. See the case of R v Brown.
The idea of consent being a legal defence, or if it actually negates the actus reus is often debated subject in law. There is more to it than just, "was there consent?", which is what people here seem to be so preoccupied with. The lack of quality in the Slashdot army of armchair legal scholars is a bit disappointing.
Motorola was pre-emptively countering as the Apple v. HTC suit is actually Apple v. Android.
I'm guessing Microsoft used the patent suit to coerce HTC into making a bigger push with WP7 than they would of otherwise. Microsoft could see the writing on the wall as most of HTC revenue was coming from Android phones which were selling like hotcakes. It was in MS' interest to keep HTC in check. I don't see it being in MS' best interest to antagonize a WP7 launch partner with excessive royalties on HTC core products.