As long as you subsidize it with government loan guarantees that no other power source needs, sure. But then you're not actually competing on an even level.
Even a mature nuclear industry can only exist with massive government subsidies because the risks of nuclear are greater than anything else. It's why it costs so much more; it simply can't be allowed to fail.
In an age of planes used as missiles I really don't want to see what happens when one decides to crash into a working reactor....or the spent fuel storage facilities that aren't hardened and usually sit right next door.
Well it's a stepping stone to a sustainable energy plan anyway. But yes, it will be necessary for probably 50-100 years before we can fully finish converting to entirely renewable sources.
The *only* way nuclear is 'good' is that its less bad than coal in terms of greenhouse gases. No more.
Then shouldn't it cover every means of self-incrimination?
You doing something of your own volition is not being forced to self-incriminate. It's voluntary. The 5th Amendment is prohibiting you from being FORCED to incriminate yourself. It doesn't prevent you from doing it to yourself voluntarily.
Why is writing it down different than keeping it in my head?
Because they are fundamentally different. You CHOSE to write it down. That's not the courts problem, that's your problem.
This is a good summary of those 2 cases. One was overturned on appeal and the other lost on general technicalities that the defendant had willingly already exposed herself legally and so there was no risk to the decryption.
But the premise is still valid - you can't be compelled to turn over a combination to a safe; i.e. the passcode.
The key thing is when they have a safe or a safe deposit box or something protected by a lock. You can be compelled to produce the key for that lock since the key is just a thing.
They aren't going the other way around of "hey he has a key - what's go to?"
How is forcing you to allow them to search your entire house/property/etc significantly different in a self-incrimination context than forcing you to allow them to search the SD (by providing the decryption key)?
It's the entire premise of the 5th Amendment. The searching physical things isn't myself doing the incrimination, the stuff itself is either incriminating or not; it's just stuff. But what you 'know', i.e. the key, requires you to be an active participant/contributor to your own prosecution for it to be used. Hence you can't be compelled to provide it.
What you intended to imply and what they will think you are implying (aka "infer") are going to be two different things. "A sign of a guilty mind" is how it will be viewed.
Again, the point of the 5th Amendment is that you can't be required to incriminate yourself. Whether it 'would' incriminate you or not is irrelevant - if there's a likelihood that providing the code could lead to incrimination you aren't required to aid in that prosecution.
It's the fundamental purpose of the 5th Amendment.
Well you know that they can get a warrant to force you to decrytpt it
The 5th Amendment would tend to disagree with you, at least in the US. Now if they grant you immunity, then yes you have to decrypt it, but then you have immunity and are not at risk.
to be honest if you driving on the public highway is there any reasonable reason why you would want to deny law enforcement access to it?
Because I want to and it's a free society?
try to hide your footage implies that you have been doing something naughty driving wise.
It implies nothing more than I don't want other people to see it without my permission.
Dude asked for a way to keep the data encrypted when 'stored'. If it's simply broadcast to a secured storage medium and not stored or not stored very long, i.e. the laptop, it still meets the criteria. The cop isn't going to be able to wirelessly grab what was sent 20 minutes ago.
Would a WiFi SD card to a laptop in the car do the same job? I don't know whether those SD cards store stuff permanently or just long enough to transmit it. Or maybe it's configurable to erase after transmission?
I wouldn't assume you'd have good enough wireless connection for that. A second step to off-site it certainly is a reasonable feature, but encrypt it first so you at least 'have' it.
That said, having your laptop serve as a local WiFi and using one of those WiFi SD cards...do they store the data and keep it stored or just long enough to transmit it? That might solve the problem entirely since the laptop certainly will be capable of being encrypted well enough to protect from usage and the SD card is blank by design?
Begs an interesting question based on 5th Amendment:
You can't be compelled to produce a 'password' or combination, but you can be compelled to produce a physical key to a safe, or for instance your fingerprint to unlock your fingerprint encrypted laptop.
Does this 'private key' count as a password or a key from a legal perspective?
And to put your ignorant 'me first' outlook in perspective:
LA governor Bobby Jindal decried 'volcano monitoring' in his 2009 State of the Union response. Guess what happened 2 weeks later in Alaska? A volcano not too far from Anchorage erupted. I'm quite sure that LA isn't going to be effected by volcanoes anytime soon...yet they certainly pay money towards 'volcano monitoring' because we do that as a society - we help everybody even if 'we' aren't directly affected by that particular issue.
How much tax payer money was spent on New Orleans? How much will be spent on moving Miami? Or building a sea wall to protect NYC?
The sea is rising and getting warmer. More warmth means more energy available for storms so they 'will' be stronger.
The costs will be massive and while perhaps *you* won't pay them directly, your kids and grand kids certainly will be paying them - unless we start trying to head it off now.
So if a factory upstream from you was dumping chemical waste into your water supply and not having to pay to clean it up, you don't see that as a beneficial gift to their bottom line?
CO2 emissions are having environmental effects that will cost significant amounts of money to mitigate. If you're contributing to the problem but not helping to solve it, then yes you're getting a subsidy.
Where does the carbon come from? The fossil fuels we're burning every day.
That carbon was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago. The earth has adjusted to it's removal over said millions of years.
By burning it we are putting it back in, in just the span of a a few dozen decades. It's not going to be reabsorbed that fast so it's going to have an effect on the atmosphere. Most indications are it won't be a 'good' effect for what we consider normal and predictable.
So making coal/oil/gas pay for releasing that CO2 so we have money to try and mitigate it's effects seems a reasonable solution. If they'd rather not pay, then don't emit the CO2 and sequester it - safely and for a very very long time.
You mention that it's difficult to do that. I agree. It's expensive and energy intensive.
But the effects of global warming are going to have very expensive effects too. So you'll pay for it either way, but by sequestering (or using solar) you'll have a safer place to live.
You seem to be flirting with the 'but solar releases CO2 in the cell production!' complaint. Yet it does. So do coal plants when they are being built. That basically washes out any difference between them.
Solar does not release any CO2 during it's operation, nor does it have fuel costs. Coal can't say that.
If a company is dumping toxic waste into a stream but aren't being fined/punished that is most definitely a 'subsidy' to their bottom line. Right now nobody is paying for CO2 release, but we will 'all' be paying for it as global warming kicks in full swing. Best to start now and get some money for the coming costs no?
Slashdot Mirror
So, basacilly nuclear provides solid, reliable baseline power with fewer deaths per kWh than any other scheme in existence.
Solid, check.
Reliable, mostly check
Fewer deaths?
As long as you subsidize it with government loan guarantees that no other power source needs, sure. But then you're not actually competing on an even level.
Even a mature nuclear industry can only exist with massive government subsidies because the risks of nuclear are greater than anything else. It's why it costs so much more; it simply can't be allowed to fail.
In an age of planes used as missiles I really don't want to see what happens when one decides to crash into a working reactor....or the spent fuel storage facilities that aren't hardened and usually sit right next door.
Nuclear Energy is part of a complete energy plan.
Well it's a stepping stone to a sustainable energy plan anyway. But yes, it will be necessary for probably 50-100 years before we can fully finish converting to entirely renewable sources.
The *only* way nuclear is 'good' is that its less bad than coal in terms of greenhouse gases. No more.
Then shouldn't it cover every means of self-incrimination?
You doing something of your own volition is not being forced to self-incriminate. It's voluntary. The 5th Amendment is prohibiting you from being FORCED to incriminate yourself. It doesn't prevent you from doing it to yourself voluntarily.
Why is writing it down different than keeping it in my head?
Because they are fundamentally different. You CHOSE to write it down. That's not the courts problem, that's your problem.
Read this as it talks about the different types of immunity that can be granted.
This is a good summary of those 2 cases. One was overturned on appeal and the other lost on general technicalities that the defendant had willingly already exposed herself legally and so there was no risk to the decryption.
But the premise is still valid - you can't be compelled to turn over a combination to a safe; i.e. the passcode.
The key thing is when they have a safe or a safe deposit box or something protected by a lock. You can be compelled to produce the key for that lock since the key is just a thing.
They aren't going the other way around of "hey he has a key - what's go to?"
How is forcing you to allow them to search your entire house/property/etc significantly different in a self-incrimination context than forcing you to allow them to search the SD (by providing the decryption key)?
It's the entire premise of the 5th Amendment. The searching physical things isn't myself doing the incrimination, the stuff itself is either incriminating or not; it's just stuff. But what you 'know', i.e. the key, requires you to be an active participant/contributor to your own prosecution for it to be used. Hence you can't be compelled to provide it.
What you intended to imply and what they will think you are implying (aka "infer") are going to be two different things. "A sign of a guilty mind" is how it will be viewed.
Again, the point of the 5th Amendment is that you can't be required to incriminate yourself. Whether it 'would' incriminate you or not is irrelevant - if there's a likelihood that providing the code could lead to incrimination you aren't required to aid in that prosecution.
It's the fundamental purpose of the 5th Amendment.
Well you know that they can get a warrant to force you to decrytpt it
The 5th Amendment would tend to disagree with you, at least in the US. Now if they grant you immunity, then yes you have to decrypt it, but then you have immunity and are not at risk.
to be honest if you driving on the public highway is there any reasonable reason why you would want to deny law enforcement access to it?
Because I want to and it's a free society?
try to hide your footage implies that you have been doing something naughty driving wise.
It implies nothing more than I don't want other people to see it without my permission.
Perfect meet good. Try not to be enemies....
Dude asked for a way to keep the data encrypted when 'stored'. If it's simply broadcast to a secured storage medium and not stored or not stored very long, i.e. the laptop, it still meets the criteria. The cop isn't going to be able to wirelessly grab what was sent 20 minutes ago.
Indeed, now wrap it up further and have that private key file itself be in an encrypted volume protected by a password.
Wheeeee
Then you provide them the 'code' that represents the physical key (you know the one you use to make a new one?)...nice try though
Would a WiFi SD card to a laptop in the car do the same job? I don't know whether those SD cards store stuff permanently or just long enough to transmit it. Or maybe it's configurable to erase after transmission?
I wouldn't assume you'd have good enough wireless connection for that. A second step to off-site it certainly is a reasonable feature, but encrypt it first so you at least 'have' it.
That said, having your laptop serve as a local WiFi and using one of those WiFi SD cards...do they store the data and keep it stored or just long enough to transmit it? That might solve the problem entirely since the laptop certainly will be capable of being encrypted well enough to protect from usage and the SD card is blank by design?
In the US we aren't...it's known as the 5th Amendment.
Begs an interesting question based on 5th Amendment:
You can't be compelled to produce a 'password' or combination, but you can be compelled to produce a physical key to a safe, or for instance your fingerprint to unlock your fingerprint encrypted laptop.
Does this 'private key' count as a password or a key from a legal perspective?
Obviously not enough Slashdotters have had children
Good or bad thing?
"Its a small world after all, It's a small world after all...
You're welcome.
And to put your ignorant 'me first' outlook in perspective:
LA governor Bobby Jindal decried 'volcano monitoring' in his 2009 State of the Union response. Guess what happened 2 weeks later in Alaska? A volcano not too far from Anchorage erupted. I'm quite sure that LA isn't going to be effected by volcanoes anytime soon...yet they certainly pay money towards 'volcano monitoring' because we do that as a society - we help everybody even if 'we' aren't directly affected by that particular issue.
Join AC as being an idiot.
How much tax payer money was spent on New Orleans? How much will be spent on moving Miami? Or building a sea wall to protect NYC?
The sea is rising and getting warmer. More warmth means more energy available for storms so they 'will' be stronger.
The costs will be massive and while perhaps *you* won't pay them directly, your kids and grand kids certainly will be paying them - unless we start trying to head it off now.
with imports across the globe you have transport
Good thing all that coal being burned is dug up in the back yard...
*everything* has costs but fossil fuels have direct things that renewables don't. Like the FUEL itself.
So if a factory upstream from you was dumping chemical waste into your water supply and not having to pay to clean it up, you don't see that as a beneficial gift to their bottom line?
CO2 emissions are having environmental effects that will cost significant amounts of money to mitigate. If you're contributing to the problem but not helping to solve it, then yes you're getting a subsidy.
Where does the carbon come from? The fossil fuels we're burning every day.
That carbon was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago. The earth has adjusted to it's removal over said millions of years.
By burning it we are putting it back in, in just the span of a a few dozen decades. It's not going to be reabsorbed that fast so it's going to have an effect on the atmosphere. Most indications are it won't be a 'good' effect for what we consider normal and predictable.
So making coal/oil/gas pay for releasing that CO2 so we have money to try and mitigate it's effects seems a reasonable solution. If they'd rather not pay, then don't emit the CO2 and sequester it - safely and for a very very long time.
You mention that it's difficult to do that. I agree. It's expensive and energy intensive.
But the effects of global warming are going to have very expensive effects too. So you'll pay for it either way, but by sequestering (or using solar) you'll have a safer place to live.
You seem to be flirting with the 'but solar releases CO2 in the cell production!' complaint. Yet it does. So do coal plants when they are being built. That basically washes out any difference between them.
Solar does not release any CO2 during it's operation, nor does it have fuel costs. Coal can't say that.
More than a few barrels of oil worth. And we burn quite a few...
You're an idiot.
If a company is dumping toxic waste into a stream but aren't being fined/punished that is most definitely a 'subsidy' to their bottom line. Right now nobody is paying for CO2 release, but we will 'all' be paying for it as global warming kicks in full swing. Best to start now and get some money for the coming costs no?