1 - death ( yes, death, not jail ) for conviced spammers ( oh, and make it painful and long too )
I'm actually suprised there have not been any vigilante attacks yet. Just imagine what one really pissed-off person can do from a van parked across the street from a spammers house with an ordinary hunting rifle. Or, if you are not into the whole violence thing, just leave an anti-spam manifesto and slash their tires. Every day for a week.:-)
I HATE these stupid 'form letter' responses. They make the poster look like they know-it-all, and they preclude any REAL thought or discussion about the idea. That said, I have a simple, foolproof idea to help eliminate spam.
Email certification.
If you want to be able to send Certified Email (CE), you apply for Certification from the company that gives you internet connectivity. They check you out, and 'Certify' you as being a legitimate emailer (ie: not a spammer). Then, you generate a private/public key pair and give them the public one. In the headers of all your email, is their certification, and an encrypted header line that's createdusing your private key.
When email arrives at the recipients server (or this could be done at the client level, as well), the server sees the certification, and connects to the certifying server to get your public key. It attempts to decrypt the header line. If it does it marks the email as 'certified', if it cannot, it marks the email as 'uncertified', and the email client can be programmed to filter messages based on that.
Due to the public/private key cryptography, there can be no certified email spoofing. (Assuming the private keys are secure, the keys are of decent length, etc.) All emails are traceable back to the originating server. CORRECTION- all CERTIFIED emails are traceable. Anonymous email is still possible. People can still set up email servers for mailing lists without "having" to get them certified. And people can still receive non-certified mail.
If an email server sends out spam, the complaints go to it's certifier. They can drop the certification, deleting the public key from their server. When this happens, ALL the email from the spamming server is now 'uncertified', and gets handled accordingly by email clients. If nothing is done, complaints go to THEIR upstream, etc. Individuals and groups can keep their own blacklists, if they wish, and anyone can choose to filter emails according to those lists.
Now, I've looked over that 'form email' that people like to post to shoot down anti-spam ideas. And nothing applies to this idea. (If something seems to apply, it's because I either left out details, or explained something wrong.) This idea does NOT need to be universally adopted, nor does it need to be adopted by everyone all at once. It's primarily a way of reliably tracing (certified) emails back to their originating server. The anti-spam part comes later: if you receive certified spam, complain and get the server un-certified. If you receive un-certified spam... well, just have your email client dump all uncertified emails in the trash. (Not nessisarilly, you could just use it's un-certifedness as a factor in filtering your email.)
This idea does not require anything be changed with SMTP. It simply requires a second connection be made to the certifying server. Now, before you bitch about the extra bandwidth, I'd like to remind you that, once this idea catches on, spam will be greatly reduced. This reduction will MORE than make up for the slight increase in bandwidth created in querying the certifying servers. Also, the certifying servers can set time limits on when the certifications expire, and need to be re-downloaded (kind of like DHCP leases). A 'new' company that just applied for certification might have it's certificate set to expire almost instantly. This way, every email they send requires a download of the certificate. This allows the certificate to be pulled rapidly if they start spamming. After a month or two, it could be set to expire weekly or monthly.
To sum up: Email Certification is reliable way of tracing the certified emails back to their originating server. This allows spammers to be identified unequivocally, and have their certification pulled. Email servers are NOT required to be certified, and anonymous email is still possible. Email recipients can, if they choose, set up their client to send uncertified emails to the trash, or to handle them however they wish. White lists and black lists
This reminds me of a short story (by Clarke or Asimov, I think). It's the far future, and increasingly dense data storage (the terms "notched quark" and "nudged quark" are used) means all of Humanities knowledge fits into a single file cabinet-sized drawer. All the rest of the world-wide internet-like system consists of indexes, indexes of indexes, and indexes of indexes of indexes of... well, you get the idea. One day a worker comes across an error, and forwards it to his boss. It keeps getting sent up the chain of command until a Master Troubleshooter realizes that to fix it, he needs to refer to the original datastore location. He enters the command to find the physical location of the datastore... and gets the same error.
(+) Definitely an option for some parts of the world, but not really going to work well for many countries as they don't have enough arable land to make all the biomass. And to make it replace fossil fuels for cars will require so much water to irrigate the crops we will probably have to start building massive numbers of desalination plants, etc. Personally I'd rather keep the land areas untouched and go for renewables, but some countries do manage this option ok.
I foresee a not-too-distant future where we've bio-engineered a type of bacterium to 'eat' biomass (read: grass clippings, fall leaves, corn husks, other wastes, etc) and and produce a type of liquid hydrocarbon. That liquid hydrocarbon can be handled like gas (petrol) is now- it would use the same facilities, the same transports, etc. Heck, people could home-produce the stuff like bio-diesel is produced now.
2) To use the issue a few posts upthread: Lets say I meet someone online. They claim to be underage. However, I honestly beleive them to be of age and roleplaying. (After all, you generally need a credit card to get internet service, and you generally need to be 18 to get a CC.) Anyway, I (role)play along, and eventually agree to meet them at a nearby park. I get there, honestly expecting a 20-something dressed in a Catholic Schoolgirl uniform, only to have the FBI arrest me.
My INTENT was perfectly legal. But good luck I'll have trying to prove that to anyone.
The premise only works in a Cold War, MAD environment, not the modern day "ball of snakes" environment.
WHat about this?
The kid breaks into a (super)computer at the cia/nsa/whatever using the password of a (former) top agent that retired recently. Unknown to him, the computer is the one that 'runs' or dispatches anti-terrorism teams (think James Bond, or Treadstone from the Bourne stories). He thinks it's a game, and starts sending anti-terrorism teams across the globe after people with random names. Several of these teams almost succeed in 'taking out' their (totally innocent) targets.
The rest of the movie is similar to the original Wargames: The kid hears what happens, tries to get rid of the evidence, but the computer (thinking it's creator was in trouble) calls him back. He gets caught by the FBI, but the computer sends a retreival team after him, leading to a huge fire-fight, as each side thinks the other is the bad guys. The kid manages to escape, tracks down the retired agent, and they head back to the top-secret goverment base where the computer is to try and convince it everything is okay.
Too little of them and you get a monopoly or a trust that makes the certificates too costly to buy, if you have too much of them, spammers will get them certificates and ruin the reputation of each of the certificating authorities.
The whole point is that the 'certifying authorities' have their reputations on the line, and won't certify spammers, or else they risk effectively being black-listed. If one ISP kicks out a spammer, they can/should publicise the fact, and let other ISPs know to watch out for that person/company.
If the price for certification is too high no one, or very few people will certificate themselves and no one will be able to deny the uncertified mails and you get to the cituation you have now.
The market will find it's own level. (or whatever.) If they price it too high, no one will use it, and they make no money and people keep gettign spam. If they price it low, they make no money, and no one gets any spam. If they price it in the middle, a lot of people will use it, they'll make money, and people will get very little spam.
You can aways discover the origin of an email, as soon as an email enters a normal SMTP server it will record the ip from witch this email has come, sure there can be a long lists of fake 'received by' headers before that but the ip from the zombie is always there.
Right. Now, you explain to Grandma how to figure out which headers are real, and which are faked. Kinda hard, huh? Heck, some email clients don't even SHOW you the headers!
Now, place Grandma in front of a Mail Client that says, in big, bold letters "This email came from WeAreNotSpammersInc.com" Can she tell where that email came from now? If she gets spam, can she hit the Big Red Button that automatically fires off a spam complaint to the certifying authority?
I have a simple, foolproof idea to help eliminate spam.
Email certification.
If you want to be able to send Certified Email (CE), you apply for Certification from the company that gives you internet connectivity. They check you out, and 'Certify' you as being a legitimate emailer (ie: not a spammer). Then, you generate a private/public key pair and give them the public one. In the headers of all your email, is their certification, and an encrypted header line that's createdusing your private key.
When email arrives at the recipients server (or this could be done at the client level, as well), the server sees the certification, and connects to the certifying server to get your public key. It attempts to decrypt the header line. If it does it marks the email as 'certified', if it cannot, it marks the email as 'uncertified', and the email client can be programmed to filter messages based on that.
Due to the public/private key cryptography, there can be no certified email spoofing. (Assuming the private keys are secure, the keys are of decent length, etc.) All emails are traceable back to the originating server. CORRECTION- all CERTIFIED emails are traceable. Anonymous email is still possible. People can still set up email servers for mailing lists without "having" to get them certified. And people can still receive non-certified mail.
If an email server sends out spam, the complaints go to it's certifier. They can drop the certification, deleting the public key from their server. When this happens, ALL the email from the spamming server is now 'uncertified', and gets handled accordingly by email clients. If nothing is done, complaints go to THEIR upstream, etc. Individuals and groups can keep their own blacklists, if they wish, and anyone can choose to filter emails according to those lists.
Now, I've looked over that 'form email' that people like to post to shoot down anti-spam ideas. And nothing applies to this idea. (If something seems to apply, it's because I either left out details, or explained something wrong.) This idea does NOT need to be universally adopted, nor does it need to be adopted by everyone all at once. It's primarily a way of reliably tracing (certified) emails back to their originating server. The anti-spam part comes later: if you receive certified spam, complain and get the server un-certified. If you receive un-certified spam... well, just have your email client dump all uncertified emails in the trash. (Not nessisarilly, you could just use it's un-certifedness as a factor in filtering your email.)
This idea does not require anything be changed with SMTP. It simply requires a second connection be made to the certifying server. Now, before you bitch about the extra bandwidth, I'd like to remind you that, once this idea catches on, spam will be greatly reduced. This reduction will MORE than make up for the slight increase in bandwidth created in querying the certifying servers. Also, the certifying servers can set time limits on when the certifications expire, and need to be re-downloaded (kind of like DHCP leases). A 'new' company that just applied for certification might have it's certificate set to expire almost instantly. This way, every email they send requires a download of the certificate. This allows the certificate to be pulled rapidly if they start spamming. After a month or two, it could be set to expire weekly or monthly.
To sum up: Email Certification is reliable way of tracing the certified emails back to their originating server. This allows spammers to be identified unequivocally, and have their certification pulled. Email servers are NOT required to be certified, and anonymous email is still possible. Email recipients can, if they choose, set up their client to send uncertified emails to the trash, or to handle them however they wish. White lists and black lists are still possible. 'Hobby mailing lists' are still possible, certified or not. The extra bandwidth is minimal, and easily overshadowed by the reduction in spam being sen
Not a receipt. A receipt is a bad idea. A verifiable paper trail.
That's the point- to have proof of what votes were made, in a form that is not controlable by the government.
Now, you seem to be concerned with people 'selling' their votes. Don't be. The receipt can simply have the votes, the voting machine number, and a time stamp on it. That's enough information to specify one particular vote (ie: the electronic database shows a vote for Candidate 'A' from machine 2 at 12:01, and that's unique), BUT it also does not provide adaquate proof that a particular person voted a certain way. If my boss threatens to fire me unless I vote for Candidate 'A', I can vote any way I wish, and then grab a receipt from the trash that shows a vote for 'A'. (You KNOW most people will throw away the receipts, right? And that's okay, because, in the event of a recount, only a statistically important percentage need have them.) There is NO way my boss can be assured the receipt I hand him represents MY vote. And, knowing him, he won't pay out cash unless he's sure.
He was not resisting when the video starts ('NOW').
Him resisting THEN is not a legitimate reason for the cop to go crazy punching him in the face NOW.
I can't make it any clearer. He was NOT resisting at the time the cop punched him repeatedly. He may have resisted EARLIER, but he was NOT resisting THEN.
You automatically assume the police are in the right and that the video was edited, the other guy assumes the police are power tripping and assaulting someone for no reason.
(Note- I'm 'the other guy')
No, I'm NOT assuming the cops are "power tripping and assaulting someone for no reason".
I'm simply going by the evidence we have- the video. In that video, we see a man who is being held down by 2 cops. He is NOT moving for the first 5 seconds. We see a cop who, 5 seconds into the video, punches the restrained man 3 times in the face.
THAT is what I'm commenting on. I'm not rushing off wildly into specualtion: "What if he was grabbing the cops groin?" "What if he was resisting a few seconds before the video started?" "What if the video was somehow edited to make the cops look bad?" "What if Martians were using a Mind-Ray to control the cops?"
None of these speculations matter to the issue at hand, which is: Did a cop repeatedly punch in the face a man who was being held down?
Now tell me this, did you see cops attempting to get cuffs on him in the video?
No. I see one cop SITTING on his thighs (kinda hard to turn over and put your hands behind your back when there is a full-grown man sitting on your legs). I see the other cop holding the man's wrist. The wrist that needs to go UNDER the man as he turns over. (Kinda hard to roll onto your stomach when the wrist that must go UNDER you is being held). I see the second cop also KNEELING on his neck. (Kinda hard to roll over... oh, you get the idea.)
What I do NOT see is the cops rolling him over until AFTER one of them punches him 5 times in the face.
Were the cuffs actually on him during the video? No! Why not?
Because the cops were not allowing him to roll over so they could cuff him.
Please, point out to us these movments he makes during the first 5 seconds of the video.
Well?
I'm waiting...
Oh, he DOESN'T make any movments in the first 5 seconds of the video? Then guess what- He's stopped moving!
Now kids, when being arrested, if you don't want a beating, then don't resist arrest! SIMPLE!
Oh, how could he have been so stupid. He was grabbing at the leg of the cop who was kneeling on his neck. He should have relaxed completely, and let the officer cut off ALL his air supply.
He flailed out at the cop after the cop punched him in the face 3 times? Stupid him- he should have laid there and taken it. He should have repressed every ounce of instinct and let the officer beat him black and blue.
If being falsely arrested, don't resist. Instead, sort it out with your lawyer later.
And it'll be the (fine, upstanding, can-do-no-wrong) cop's word against yours. We all know how that ends up- heck in THIS case, where we have VIDEO of what happened, there are still tons of people defending the (fine, upstanding, can-do-no-wrong) cop. Imagine if it's just he-said, he-said.
Don't be ridiculous. If you've been fighting someone to restrain them, then that person is a violent attacker.
And once they STOP MOVING, they are NO LONGER an attacker.
Of course the context matters.
Not legally.
If I drive over to your house and shoot you in the head, I committed murder.
If someone tells me you are a bad guy, and I drive over to your house and shoot you in the head, I STILL committed murder.
If someone tells me you committed a crime at one time in your life, and I drive over to your house and shoot you in the head, I STILL committed murder.
If someone tells me you committed a rape last week, and I drive over to your house and shoot you in the head. It's STILL murder.
If someone tells me you raped my wife 10 minutes ago, and I drive over to your house and shoot you in the head. It's STILL murder.
It DOES NOT MATTER what happened BEFORE. When the video starts, he is NOT fighting. He is pretty much MOTIONLESS for the first 5 seconds, until the cop punches him. He IS NOT resisting at that point.
Maybe he WAS resisting a few seconds earlier. SO WHAT? He is not resisting when the video starts.
It's far more likely that said neighbour or fellow gang member started filming as soon as they saw the violence kick off but then edited it to portray only one side of the situation according to their own personal prejudices.
Yeah- them gang members are wizzes at film editing.
What happened before or after the video clip we can see IS IRRELEVENT. At the time the video begins, the guy is restrained. He has a cop kneeling on his neck, and a cop sitting on his thighs. He is not moving. That being so, the cop has NO JUSTIFICATION FOR PUNCHING HIM IN THE FACE.
It doesn't matter what happened before or after- what happened ON THE VIDEO is inexcusable, wrong, and illegal.
That a team of professional filmmakers showed up, filmed the entire event, then decided to transfer JUST those 20-30 seconds of video into a neighbors cameraphone in order to make the cops look bad?
Or is it just a tad bit more reasonable that a neighbor started filming with their cameraphone, and captured as much as they could with that device?
If the pressure was significant on the side of his neck his carotid would have been closed, starving his brain of blood and he would have blacked out within seconds.
Depends on exactly WHERE the pressure is. If it's not directly over the carotid artery, or if the pressure is not too high, then it is VERY possible for someone to remain conscious.
Obviously, the guy was not passed out, so one of those two things must have been so.
How could he speak if he couldn't breathe? Watch the video. He's both breathing and speaking.
Answered elsewhere, by myself and others.
Not only that, before the officer punches him he tries to get a grip on the officers upper thigh or groin with his right hand. Watch the video. 15 seconds in. Given the proximity to the officer's groin I'm not surprised he got hit.
You left out the fact that the officer WAS KNEELING ON THE GUYS NECK. I'd be 'trying to get a grip' on the leg that was kneeling on my neck, too.
Slashdot Mirror
1 - death ( yes, death, not jail ) for conviced spammers ( oh, and make it painful and long too )
:-)
I'm actually suprised there have not been any vigilante attacks yet. Just imagine what one really pissed-off person can do from a van parked across the street from a spammers house with an ordinary hunting rifle. Or, if you are not into the whole violence thing, just leave an anti-spam manifesto and slash their tires. Every day for a week.
I HATE these stupid 'form letter' responses. They make the poster look like they know-it-all, and they preclude any REAL thought or discussion about the idea. That said, I have a simple, foolproof idea to help eliminate spam.
Email certification.
If you want to be able to send Certified Email (CE), you apply for Certification from the company that gives you internet connectivity. They check you out, and 'Certify' you as being a legitimate emailer (ie: not a spammer). Then, you generate a private/public key pair and give them the public one. In the headers of all your email, is their certification, and an encrypted header line that's createdusing your private key.
When email arrives at the recipients server (or this could be done at the client level, as well), the server sees the certification, and connects to the certifying server to get your public key. It attempts to decrypt the header line. If it does it marks the email as 'certified', if it cannot, it marks the email as 'uncertified', and the email client can be programmed to filter messages based on that.
Due to the public/private key cryptography, there can be no certified email spoofing. (Assuming the private keys are secure, the keys are of decent length, etc.) All emails are traceable back to the originating server. CORRECTION- all CERTIFIED emails are traceable. Anonymous email is still possible. People can still set up email servers for mailing lists without "having" to get them certified. And people can still receive non-certified mail.
If an email server sends out spam, the complaints go to it's certifier. They can drop the certification, deleting the public key from their server. When this happens, ALL the email from the spamming server is now 'uncertified', and gets handled accordingly by email clients. If nothing is done, complaints go to THEIR upstream, etc. Individuals and groups can keep their own blacklists, if they wish, and anyone can choose to filter emails according to those lists.
Now, I've looked over that 'form email' that people like to post to shoot down anti-spam ideas. And nothing applies to this idea. (If something seems to apply, it's because I either left out details, or explained something wrong.) This idea does NOT need to be universally adopted, nor does it need to be adopted by everyone all at once. It's primarily a way of reliably tracing (certified) emails back to their originating server. The anti-spam part comes later: if you receive certified spam, complain and get the server un-certified. If you receive un-certified spam... well, just have your email client dump all uncertified emails in the trash. (Not nessisarilly, you could just use it's un-certifedness as a factor in filtering your email.)
This idea does not require anything be changed with SMTP. It simply requires a second connection be made to the certifying server. Now, before you bitch about the extra bandwidth, I'd like to remind you that, once this idea catches on, spam will be greatly reduced. This reduction will MORE than make up for the slight increase in bandwidth created in querying the certifying servers. Also, the certifying servers can set time limits on when the certifications expire, and need to be re-downloaded (kind of like DHCP leases). A 'new' company that just applied for certification might have it's certificate set to expire almost instantly. This way, every email they send requires a download of the certificate. This allows the certificate to be pulled rapidly if they start spamming. After a month or two, it could be set to expire weekly or monthly.
To sum up: Email Certification is reliable way of tracing the certified emails back to their originating server. This allows spammers to be identified unequivocally, and have their certification pulled. Email servers are NOT required to be certified, and anonymous email is still possible. Email recipients can, if they choose, set up their client to send uncertified emails to the trash, or to handle them however they wish. White lists and black lists
This reminds me of a short story (by Clarke or Asimov, I think). It's the far future, and increasingly dense data storage (the terms "notched quark" and "nudged quark" are used) means all of Humanities knowledge fits into a single file cabinet-sized drawer. All the rest of the world-wide internet-like system consists of indexes, indexes of indexes, and indexes of indexes of indexes of... well, you get the idea. One day a worker comes across an error, and forwards it to his boss. It keeps getting sent up the chain of command until a Master Troubleshooter realizes that to fix it, he needs to refer to the original datastore location. He enters the command to find the physical location of the datastore... and gets the same error.
:-)
Uhh-oh.
Yup- Taxact.
I've already filed! And with Direct Deposit, I'm looking to get my refund in just a few more days!
Biodiesel & Alcohols (+)
(+) Definitely an option for some parts of the world, but not really going to work well for many countries as they don't have enough arable land to make all the biomass. And to make it replace fossil fuels for cars will require so much water to irrigate the crops we will probably have to start building massive numbers of desalination plants, etc. Personally I'd rather keep the land areas untouched and go for renewables, but some countries do manage this option ok.
I foresee a not-too-distant future where we've bio-engineered a type of bacterium to 'eat' biomass (read: grass clippings, fall leaves, corn husks, other wastes, etc) and and produce a type of liquid hydrocarbon. That liquid hydrocarbon can be handled like gas (petrol) is now- it would use the same facilities, the same transports, etc. Heck, people could home-produce the stuff like bio-diesel is produced now.
Then you are an adult in need of supervision.
Yeaaahhhh. Because no one ever roleplays online. No one EVER pretends to be something they are not.
Somewhat behind the times, aren't we
Sheesh. That was just ONE example of a piece of evidence I might have that would lead me to beleive that the person is of age.
1) Your analogy sucks.
2) To use the issue a few posts upthread:
Lets say I meet someone online. They claim to be underage. However, I honestly beleive them to be of age and roleplaying. (After all, you generally need a credit card to get internet service, and you generally need to be 18 to get a CC.) Anyway, I (role)play along, and eventually agree to meet them at a nearby park. I get there, honestly expecting a 20-something dressed in a Catholic Schoolgirl uniform, only to have the FBI arrest me.
My INTENT was perfectly legal. But good luck I'll have trying to prove that to anyone.
...because, you know, the cops can read your mind, and know exactly what your real intent is. /Thoughtcrime double-ungood.
...but he has the 'pull' to get his data deleted or made 'private'.
The premise only works in a Cold War, MAD environment, not the modern day "ball of snakes" environment.
WHat about this?
The kid breaks into a (super)computer at the cia/nsa/whatever using the password of a (former) top agent that retired recently. Unknown to him, the computer is the one that 'runs' or dispatches anti-terrorism teams (think James Bond, or Treadstone from the Bourne stories). He thinks it's a game, and starts sending anti-terrorism teams across the globe after people with random names. Several of these teams almost succeed in 'taking out' their (totally innocent) targets.
The rest of the movie is similar to the original Wargames: The kid hears what happens, tries to get rid of the evidence, but the computer (thinking it's creator was in trouble) calls him back. He gets caught by the FBI, but the computer sends a retreival team after him, leading to a huge fire-fight, as each side thinks the other is the bad guys. The kid manages to escape, tracks down the retired agent, and they head back to the top-secret goverment base where the computer is to try and convince it everything is okay.
What are the acceptable certifiers?
ISPs.
Too little of them and you get a monopoly or a trust that makes the certificates too costly to buy, if you have too much of them, spammers will get them certificates and ruin the reputation of each of the certificating authorities.
The whole point is that the 'certifying authorities' have their reputations on the line, and won't certify spammers, or else they risk effectively being black-listed. If one ISP kicks out a spammer, they can/should publicise the fact, and let other ISPs know to watch out for that person/company.
If the price for certification is too high no one, or very few people will certificate themselves and no one will be able to deny the uncertified mails and you get to the cituation you have now.
The market will find it's own level. (or whatever.) If they price it too high, no one will use it, and they make no money and people keep gettign spam. If they price it low, they make no money, and no one gets any spam. If they price it in the middle, a lot of people will use it, they'll make money, and people will get very little spam.
You can aways discover the origin of an email, as soon as an email enters a normal SMTP server it will record the ip from witch this email has come, sure there can be a long lists of fake 'received by' headers before that but the ip from the zombie is always there.
Right. Now, you explain to Grandma how to figure out which headers are real, and which are faked. Kinda hard, huh? Heck, some email clients don't even SHOW you the headers!
Now, place Grandma in front of a Mail Client that says, in big, bold letters "This email came from WeAreNotSpammersInc.com" Can she tell where that email came from now? If she gets spam, can she hit the Big Red Button that automatically fires off a spam complaint to the certifying authority?
I have a simple, foolproof idea to help eliminate spam.
Email certification.
If you want to be able to send Certified Email (CE), you apply for Certification from the company that gives you internet connectivity. They check you out, and 'Certify' you as being a legitimate emailer (ie: not a spammer). Then, you generate a private/public key pair and give them the public one. In the headers of all your email, is their certification, and an encrypted header line that's createdusing your private key.
When email arrives at the recipients server (or this could be done at the client level, as well), the server sees the certification, and connects to the certifying server to get your public key. It attempts to decrypt the header line. If it does it marks the email as 'certified', if it cannot, it marks the email as 'uncertified', and the email client can be programmed to filter messages based on that.
Due to the public/private key cryptography, there can be no certified email spoofing. (Assuming the private keys are secure, the keys are of decent length, etc.) All emails are traceable back to the originating server. CORRECTION- all CERTIFIED emails are traceable. Anonymous email is still possible. People can still set up email servers for mailing lists without "having" to get them certified. And people can still receive non-certified mail.
If an email server sends out spam, the complaints go to it's certifier. They can drop the certification, deleting the public key from their server. When this happens, ALL the email from the spamming server is now 'uncertified', and gets handled accordingly by email clients. If nothing is done, complaints go to THEIR upstream, etc. Individuals and groups can keep their own blacklists, if they wish, and anyone can choose to filter emails according to those lists.
Now, I've looked over that 'form email' that people like to post to shoot down anti-spam ideas. And nothing applies to this idea. (If something seems to apply, it's because I either left out details, or explained something wrong.) This idea does NOT need to be universally adopted, nor does it need to be adopted by everyone all at once. It's primarily a way of reliably tracing (certified) emails back to their originating server. The anti-spam part comes later: if you receive certified spam, complain and get the server un-certified. If you receive un-certified spam... well, just have your email client dump all uncertified emails in the trash. (Not nessisarilly, you could just use it's un-certifedness as a factor in filtering your email.)
This idea does not require anything be changed with SMTP. It simply requires a second connection be made to the certifying server. Now, before you bitch about the extra bandwidth, I'd like to remind you that, once this idea catches on, spam will be greatly reduced. This reduction will MORE than make up for the slight increase in bandwidth created in querying the certifying servers. Also, the certifying servers can set time limits on when the certifications expire, and need to be re-downloaded (kind of like DHCP leases). A 'new' company that just applied for certification might have it's certificate set to expire almost instantly. This way, every email they send requires a download of the certificate. This allows the certificate to be pulled rapidly if they start spamming. After a month or two, it could be set to expire weekly or monthly.
To sum up: Email Certification is reliable way of tracing the certified emails back to their originating server. This allows spammers to be identified unequivocally, and have their certification pulled. Email servers are NOT required to be certified, and anonymous email is still possible. Email recipients can, if they choose, set up their client to send uncertified emails to the trash, or to handle them however they wish. White lists and black lists are still possible. 'Hobby mailing lists' are still possible, certified or not. The extra bandwidth is minimal, and easily overshadowed by the reduction in spam being sen
Not a receipt. A receipt is a bad idea. A verifiable paper trail.
That's the point- to have proof of what votes were made, in a form that is not controlable by the government.
Now, you seem to be concerned with people 'selling' their votes. Don't be. The receipt can simply have the votes, the voting machine number, and a time stamp on it. That's enough information to specify one particular vote (ie: the electronic database shows a vote for Candidate 'A' from machine 2 at 12:01, and that's unique), BUT it also does not provide adaquate proof that a particular person voted a certain way.
If my boss threatens to fire me unless I vote for Candidate 'A', I can vote any way I wish, and then grab a receipt from the trash that shows a vote for 'A'. (You KNOW most people will throw away the receipts, right? And that's okay, because, in the event of a recount, only a statistically important percentage need have them.) There is NO way my boss can be assured the receipt I hand him represents MY vote. And, knowing him, he won't pay out cash unless he's sure.
Why are the cops comparing names on all the cards in his wallet for a trafic stop??
That was THEN.
This is NOW.
He resisted IN THE PAST.
He was not resisting when the video starts ('NOW').
Him resisting THEN is not a legitimate reason for the cop to go crazy punching him in the face NOW.
I can't make it any clearer. He was NOT resisting at the time the cop punched him repeatedly. He may have resisted EARLIER, but he was NOT resisting THEN.
You automatically assume the police are in the right and that the video was edited, the other guy assumes the police are power tripping and assaulting someone for no reason.
(Note- I'm 'the other guy')
No, I'm NOT assuming the cops are "power tripping and assaulting someone for no reason".
I'm simply going by the evidence we have- the video. In that video, we see a man who is being held down by 2 cops. He is NOT moving for the first 5 seconds. We see a cop who, 5 seconds into the video, punches the restrained man 3 times in the face.
THAT is what I'm commenting on. I'm not rushing off wildly into specualtion: "What if he was grabbing the cops groin?" "What if he was resisting a few seconds before the video started?" "What if the video was somehow edited to make the cops look bad?" "What if Martians were using a Mind-Ray to control the cops?"
None of these speculations matter to the issue at hand, which is: Did a cop repeatedly punch in the face a man who was being held down?
Answer: Yes.
Case closed.
Now tell me this, did you see cops attempting to get cuffs on him in the video?
No. I see one cop SITTING on his thighs (kinda hard to turn over and put your hands behind your back when there is a full-grown man sitting on your legs).
I see the other cop holding the man's wrist. The wrist that needs to go UNDER the man as he turns over. (Kinda hard to roll onto your stomach when the wrist that must go UNDER you is being held).
I see the second cop also KNEELING on his neck. (Kinda hard to roll over... oh, you get the idea.)
What I do NOT see is the cops rolling him over until AFTER one of them punches him 5 times in the face.
Were the cuffs actually on him during the video? No! Why not?
Because the cops were not allowing him to roll over so they could cuff him.
Well he hadn't stopped moving.
Please, point out to us these movments he makes during the first 5 seconds of the video.
Well?
I'm waiting...
Oh, he DOESN'T make any movments in the first 5 seconds of the video? Then guess what- He's stopped moving!
Now kids, when being arrested, if you don't want a beating, then don't resist arrest! SIMPLE!
Oh, how could he have been so stupid. He was grabbing at the leg of the cop who was kneeling on his neck. He should have relaxed completely, and let the officer cut off ALL his air supply.
He flailed out at the cop after the cop punched him in the face 3 times? Stupid him- he should have laid there and taken it. He should have repressed every ounce of instinct and let the officer beat him black and blue.
If being falsely arrested, don't resist. Instead, sort it out with your lawyer later.
And it'll be the (fine, upstanding, can-do-no-wrong) cop's word against yours. We all know how that ends up- heck in THIS case, where we have VIDEO of what happened, there are still tons of people defending the (fine, upstanding, can-do-no-wrong) cop. Imagine if it's just he-said, he-said.
Don't be ridiculous. If you've been fighting someone to restrain them, then that person is a violent attacker.
And once they STOP MOVING, they are NO LONGER an attacker.
Of course the context matters.
Not legally.
If I drive over to your house and shoot you in the head, I committed murder.
If someone tells me you are a bad guy, and I drive over to your house and shoot you in the head, I STILL committed murder.
If someone tells me you committed a crime at one time in your life, and I drive over to your house and shoot you in the head, I STILL committed murder.
If someone tells me you committed a rape last week, and I drive over to your house and shoot you in the head. It's STILL murder.
If someone tells me you raped my wife 10 minutes ago, and I drive over to your house and shoot you in the head. It's STILL murder.
It DOES NOT MATTER what happened BEFORE. When the video starts, he is NOT fighting. He is pretty much MOTIONLESS for the first 5 seconds, until the cop punches him. He IS NOT resisting at that point.
Maybe he WAS resisting a few seconds earlier. SO WHAT? He is not resisting when the video starts.
It's far more likely that said neighbour or fellow gang member started filming as soon as they saw the violence kick off but then edited it to portray only one side of the situation according to their own personal prejudices.
Yeah- them gang members are wizzes at film editing.
What happened before or after the video clip we can see IS IRRELEVENT. At the time the video begins, the guy is restrained. He has a cop kneeling on his neck, and a cop sitting on his thighs. He is not moving. That being so, the cop has NO JUSTIFICATION FOR PUNCHING HIM IN THE FACE.
It doesn't matter what happened before or after- what happened ON THE VIDEO is inexcusable, wrong, and illegal.
Again, what's you point?
That a team of professional filmmakers showed up, filmed the entire event, then decided to transfer JUST those 20-30 seconds of video into a neighbors cameraphone in order to make the cops look bad?
Or is it just a tad bit more reasonable that a neighbor started filming with their cameraphone, and captured as much as they could with that device?
If the pressure was significant on the side of his neck his carotid would have been closed, starving his brain of blood and he would have blacked out within seconds.
Depends on exactly WHERE the pressure is. If it's not directly over the carotid artery, or if the pressure is not too high, then it is VERY possible for someone to remain conscious.
Obviously, the guy was not passed out, so one of those two things must have been so.
It was taken with a Camera Phone. They often have a limit on how many seconds of video can be captured. WHat's your point?
And I suspect you are a Cop or a bully. But I repeat myself.
How could he speak if he couldn't breathe? Watch the video. He's both breathing and speaking.
Answered elsewhere, by myself and others.
Not only that, before the officer punches him he tries to get a grip on the officers upper thigh or groin with his right hand. Watch the video. 15 seconds in. Given the proximity to the officer's groin I'm not surprised he got hit.
You left out the fact that the officer WAS KNEELING ON THE GUYS NECK. I'd be 'trying to get a grip' on the leg that was kneeling on my neck, too.