Indeed, although also in Europe, whilst perhaps not as advanced as Japan, we've still had things like 3G and Internet access in even non-"smart" phones for years, and we wonder what all the fuss is about.
If you give it a random name ending with ".dll" or ".cab" and put it inside game's application folder
This was my thoughts too. A slight downside is that IIRC Truecrypt doesn't work so well if you use.dll (I think because Windows can interfere with it somehow?) But yes, putting some standard filename extension that is associated with obscure system data that you can't easily see what it's meant to be, sounds like a reasonable trick that might at least fool a random security person.
Is there a system extension that one could use that Truecrypt is okay with? (It's a shame that it doesn't have the ability to pad the start of the file with a standard header, so it looks like a DLL or whatever when you view its file properties in Windows...)
(Having said that, I don't think this method would fool an expert, so it shouldn't be a substitute for hidden volumes.)
The fact that Windows, and its applications, have so many thousands of files littered about the place, that no one has a clue what they do, can have its advantages:)
This is true, but I think the point he was making was (I don't know if it's true) that there's a lower burden of proof. I.e., they don't need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt in order to deport you, but they would have to in order to convict you of a terrorism charge.
Viewing them as monsters, or thinking that they abuse children is one reason given for why it is seen as immoral. Remember that immorality is not an end in itself, but a word used to describe that they think that something is wrong.
Now, it's true to say that there are other reasons why people think it's immoral: because the Bible says so, because "it's disgusting", or they can't explain it at all.
I don't think there's any hyperbole - you explanation portrays them just as bad as jythie's explanation. Both are ignorant intolerant beliefs. And I think you're both saying the same thing really, just that yours is more generalised to account for the fact that people have different reasons for thinking it to be immoral. If one person says "Oh, I think you'll end up abusing children", and another says "It's wrong because what you do is disgusting" - whilst I suppose the former is more offensive, I'm not sure there's any qualitative difference between the two. They're both pretty bad.
You seem to be implying that discussing sexuality with children against the will of their parents in inappropriate places is perfectly fine. Is that correct?
Nice straw man. Point to me where she did this?
You seem to be entirely happy to discuss sexuality on a public website, aren't you worried that you're forcing it onto children without the consent of the parents? Pweease won't somebody think of the children!
I have yet to see anything that disputes that the user would have been similarly banned if they had "I'm heterosexual" in the profile.
TFA states that someone got banned even when "gay" was part of his name. ( http://consumerist.com/5010527/microsoft-confirms-gaywood-is-an-offensive-surname-mr-gaywood-responds ). Also given that this doesn't seem to be part of a TOS that states "don't mention your sexuality", this seems to more be a case of banning people for using words deemend offensive. I'd be suprised if someone was banned for the word "straight" being in their profile, but I'd be curious to see.
Furthermore, if someone was banned for saying they were straight, you can bet that people here would be all over it, criticising Microsoft, generally taking the anti-censorship line (both these views are are common on Slashdot), and playing the "Straight people have it worse than minorities" card. Yet because it's someone gay, that's okay? I'm ashamed to be reading some of the comments here.
Like it or not, sexual orientation is a mature subject.
Right, so let's censor all mention of sexuality for kids - relationships, marriage. Let's certainly not have kids at weddings. Of course, your argument is absurd - no one thinks that this is a mature subject, unless it's two people of the same sex.
"I'm into bondage and have a latex fetish"
Well, you're getting into specific acts, rather that what people you like.
What I do have a problem with are people--gay or straight or anything else--who use everything in life as a forum for their cause, even in "neutral" places such as an online gaming service.
So why do they allow these "tags" at all?
Everyone who plays online games knows that it's actually moderately difficult to get banned unless you're incredibly stupid or actually trying, which is another reason that I think the user is either soliciting something or pushing an agenda.
Sexuality is a private matter, and unless I am directly involved with someone I am not interested in their orientation. It's their business, not mine.
That, and when posting on a random forum about it.
If people now harrass you for your sexuality, and then if you complain, your account gets banned because people were offended by you mentioning it, you'd be fine with that, right?
I am entirely in agreement. I know it's on form for people to not RTFA, but in this case it really is important - most comments assume it's just about MS having a rule about not mentioning sexuality, but the claims that her sexuality is "offensive", and the automatic banning of "gay" (even as part of someone's name) are even more worrying. I wonder if they also ban anyone who says "straight"?
Why should someone be banned for a word that someone else finds offensive?
Eh? Banning someone because they were offended by a word is surely what happened here. And yes, it is "horseshit".
it's THEIR Xbox Live, not ours.... and it is Microsoft's rulebook. Don't like it? Don't join.
I don't think anyone's saying this shouldn't be allowed. But just as they might have a right to do this, equally others have a right to tell people about what happened, and criticise Microsoft to do so. Don't like it? Don't RTFA.
You are also missing several major points:
* That an account is suspended, rather than being warned up front. * That MS do nothing about people being harrassed, and instead responded by saying that people found her sexuality "offensive". * If the article is correct, it seems they blanketly ban "gay" - even if it's in your name. Do they automatically ban anyone who puts the word "straight" somewhere in their profile, even in another context?
And like I asked before, WHAT does your sexual orientation NEED to be displayed for? So you can get a higher score in something? WHY BOTHER? I don't put "I love the ladies" in my profile
Of course, the decision of what people should want to put in their profile should be based on what Doctor_Jest (688315) thinks should go in his profile. Heaven forbid that someone should have a different point of view.
Supposing MS disagreed with you? You wouldn't moan if your account was suspended without warning?
A straight person doesn't need to mention it, as they're by far in the majority, so it can be assumed by default most of the time. And a straight person might still mention similar things, such as saying they're married.
I'm also not sure that "I can't think why someone else would need to say this" is grounds for restricting this - I thought somewhere like Slashdot is the last place I'd have to explain this.
or maybe even shut up about your sexual orientation like all of us straight people do about ours
Oh yes, straight people never talk about their relationships of their marriage or sexuality. Except for the fact that it's broadcasted all over the place, both by individuals, and in the media. Sure, you don't specify being straight, but that's because there's no need to. But you never shut up about the rest of it, whilst non-straight people are expected to keep it behind closed doors.
I guess to put it into terms that might be more understandable here: Why does it seem like Linux users are always talking about how they use Linux, when most people just use computers and don't say what OS is? Why, when looking for software, are you more likely to ask for "Linux software", when a Windows user would just as for some software?
The answer ought to be obvious.
And would we claim that Linux users should "shut up" about their OS, as if suggesting that you never ever hear anyone talk about Windows? That would be absurd.
If any kind of religious indoctrination is abusive, then I think that's far more of an issue with the preaching "You'll go to hell if you do or don't do/believe such-and-such". Whilst thankfully this is less common these days, in the past at least, this was something that seemed to be quite widespread, including in schools.
How is that any improvement to using one email account for normal, and one email account for signing up to things? I mean, surely the point of this filtering method was to avoid the need for using two separate accounts...
where I don't think there has been any conviction over drawn images; even the IWF admit it's not illegal
I was careful to say fictional images, not drawn images. The latter are legal, because there's not a law against it (though that will change in a law that's going through Parliament at the moment). "Realistic" fictional images however are illegal - and people have been convicted as a result of copy-and-paste jobs, that do not involve any actual child.
All I know is that here, no one would take anything seriously if it involved people over 16, even all the news articles I read about CP arrests specifically say that the images depicted people "under 16".
I'm in the UK too - I'd like to believe that many would protest it, but there are also many who won't. As soon as the "child pr0n" claim is thrown about, all logic goes out the window. Even with the recent law against adult images, there are plenty who have eagerly supported the law.
Whilst it is technically possible for a jury to return Not Guilty even if someone has broken the law, on the grounds that they disagree with the law, AFAIK this is a little known fact, and rarely happens - I'm not convinced it will happen for something as taboo as this, and I fear that chances are, a jury will just convict someone for breaking the law.
But legislation without enforcement still has chilling effects. Perhaps it would be laughed out of court, but can you be sure? Are you willing to be a test case?
I'd like to think that cases involving fictional porn should equally be laughed out of court - but people have been convicted, and sent to prison as a result. Sadly there are a lot of fucked up judges, and people who sit on a jury, out there.
You are confusing the age of consent with the law on indecent images. They are not the same thing at all. It might be legal for me have sex with a 17 year old, but I not legally able to take pornographic photos of someone under the age of 18 without signed parental consent.
Yes, that was exactly the very point I was making. I stated "the law now covers images up to 18, even though the age of consent is 16".
An image of 16-17 year olds would be covered by the law, and presumably blocked by the IWF - however, it is highly unreasonable to refer to it as a child abuse image, since no child has been abused in its production.
but the government has already set its sights on extreme and violent porn [although to be fair to the IWF, they apparently want nothing to do filtering this].
Just to clarify "set its sights" - the law has passed, and is now in effect. Images of consenting adults (even where no one is harmed) can now be illegal to possess in the UK.
That's correct about the IWF - they'll only deal with it in the same way as material under the Obscene Publications Act, i.e., they'll only handle sites in the UK (or those uploaded by a British citizen), by reporting them to the police to take them down. They won't be blocking such images, they say.
The Government's guidance says that if we come across such material online, we should report it to the IWF - yet the IWF aren't dealing with it! It also makes a mockery of the Government passing a possession law, in that surely that should mean that it should be blocked too, just like child images?
the government, despite me hating them dearly for their repeated idiocy have not yet demanded 100% coverage, only said they'd like to see that.
The Government clearly have the power to make things happen - when they say "We'd like to see it", that pretty much implies that they are looking at ways of making it happen.
When the Home Office says "The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%.", are we to suppose that this involves things like "Writing to their ISPs as a customer and asking them nicely"?
Moreover, even if they don't pass a law - if the ISPs receive letters from the Government, chances are they will feel threatened into implementing it.
I'd like to see the existence of god disproved once and for all but that doesn't mean it's going to happen does it?
Bad analogy. You can't disprove the existence of God, but the Government clearly has the power to make this happen, through law if necessary. Anyhow, the Government hasn't merely expressed a "like", it's clearly stated that it's looking at ways of making it happen. A better analogy would be you saying you'd like a cup of tea, and were going to make one. If there's a kettle across the room and some tea bags, my bet is that fairly soon, you'll go and make a cup of tea.
Eventually the case was dropped when the police realised they had no case
The UK's planned law criminalising possession of cartoon pr0n will no doubt change this...
Last I heard it was a year after the police had dropped the case and they still didn't have the domain, or even their PCs, back.
Yes, this sort of thing is very worrying. When did "right to search" turn into "right to confiscate large amounts of expensive equipment, including their personal information, means to communicate, and equipment and data necessary for their livelihood"?
The recent Wikipedia fiasco suggests that anyone can see a blocked image just by accessing the image's URL directly, as it seems their blocking system is incapable of blocking images.
However, if they've randomly blocked a page with legal text as they like to do, you're out of luck.
Indeed. And another problem with the UK's censorship is that you don't even know the site is censored - they just falsely return a fake 404 error.
We should aspire to be like Saudi Arabia - their censorship system presents "an official government page instead, telling you that it is blocked. You can even fill in a form explaining why you think the site should be unblocked".
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, although also in Europe, whilst perhaps not as advanced as Japan, we've still had things like 3G and Internet access in even non-"smart" phones for years, and we wonder what all the fuss is about.
Compare the US to Darfur or Rwanda. You won't get tortured for being a foreigner, you'll be killed outright.
Wait - which are you trying to say is the better place to live?
If you give it a random name ending with ".dll" or ".cab" and put it inside game's application folder
This was my thoughts too. A slight downside is that IIRC Truecrypt doesn't work so well if you use .dll (I think because Windows can interfere with it somehow?) But yes, putting some standard filename extension that is associated with obscure system data that you can't easily see what it's meant to be, sounds like a reasonable trick that might at least fool a random security person.
Is there a system extension that one could use that Truecrypt is okay with? (It's a shame that it doesn't have the ability to pad the start of the file with a standard header, so it looks like a DLL or whatever when you view its file properties in Windows...)
(Having said that, I don't think this method would fool an expert, so it shouldn't be a substitute for hidden volumes.)
The fact that Windows, and its applications, have so many thousands of files littered about the place, that no one has a clue what they do, can have its advantages :)
This is true, but I think the point he was making was (I don't know if it's true) that there's a lower burden of proof. I.e., they don't need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt in order to deport you, but they would have to in order to convict you of a terrorism charge.
Viewing them as monsters, or thinking that they abuse children is one reason given for why it is seen as immoral. Remember that immorality is not an end in itself, but a word used to describe that they think that something is wrong.
Now, it's true to say that there are other reasons why people think it's immoral: because the Bible says so, because "it's disgusting", or they can't explain it at all.
I don't think there's any hyperbole - you explanation portrays them just as bad as jythie's explanation. Both are ignorant intolerant beliefs. And I think you're both saying the same thing really, just that yours is more generalised to account for the fact that people have different reasons for thinking it to be immoral. If one person says "Oh, I think you'll end up abusing children", and another says "It's wrong because what you do is disgusting" - whilst I suppose the former is more offensive, I'm not sure there's any qualitative difference between the two. They're both pretty bad.
You seem to be implying that discussing sexuality with children against the will of their parents in inappropriate places is perfectly fine. Is that correct?
Nice straw man. Point to me where she did this?
You seem to be entirely happy to discuss sexuality on a public website, aren't you worried that you're forcing it onto children without the consent of the parents? Pweease won't somebody think of the children!
I have yet to see anything that disputes that the user would have been similarly banned if they had "I'm heterosexual" in the profile.
TFA states that someone got banned even when "gay" was part of his name. ( http://consumerist.com/5010527/microsoft-confirms-gaywood-is-an-offensive-surname-mr-gaywood-responds ). Also given that this doesn't seem to be part of a TOS that states "don't mention your sexuality", this seems to more be a case of banning people for using words deemend offensive. I'd be suprised if someone was banned for the word "straight" being in their profile, but I'd be curious to see.
Furthermore, if someone was banned for saying they were straight, you can bet that people here would be all over it, criticising Microsoft, generally taking the anti-censorship line (both these views are are common on Slashdot), and playing the "Straight people have it worse than minorities" card. Yet because it's someone gay, that's okay? I'm ashamed to be reading some of the comments here.
Like it or not, sexual orientation is a mature subject.
Right, so let's censor all mention of sexuality for kids - relationships, marriage. Let's certainly not have kids at weddings. Of course, your argument is absurd - no one thinks that this is a mature subject, unless it's two people of the same sex.
"I'm into bondage and have a latex fetish"
Well, you're getting into specific acts, rather that what people you like.
What I do have a problem with are people--gay or straight or anything else--who use everything in life as a forum for their cause, even in "neutral" places such as an online gaming service.
So why do they allow these "tags" at all?
Everyone who plays online games knows that it's actually moderately difficult to get banned unless you're incredibly stupid or actually trying, which is another reason that I think the user is either soliciting something or pushing an agenda.
Citation needed?
Sexuality is a private matter, and unless I am directly involved with someone I am not interested in their orientation. It's their business, not mine.
That, and when posting on a random forum about it.
If people now harrass you for your sexuality, and then if you complain, your account gets banned because people were offended by you mentioning it, you'd be fine with that, right?
You need to autoban people who use the word "gay", in order to prevent child abuse? Right-o.
Is the same true if someone says they're straight?
I am entirely in agreement. I know it's on form for people to not RTFA, but in this case it really is important - most comments assume it's just about MS having a rule about not mentioning sexuality, but the claims that her sexuality is "offensive", and the automatic banning of "gay" (even as part of someone's name) are even more worrying. I wonder if they also ban anyone who says "straight"?
Why should someone be banned for a word that someone else finds offensive?
Eh? Banning someone because they were offended by a word is surely what happened here. And yes, it is "horseshit".
it's THEIR Xbox Live, not ours. ... and it is Microsoft's rulebook. Don't like it? Don't join.
I don't think anyone's saying this shouldn't be allowed. But just as they might have a right to do this, equally others have a right to tell people about what happened, and criticise Microsoft to do so. Don't like it? Don't RTFA.
You are also missing several major points:
* That an account is suspended, rather than being warned up front.
* That MS do nothing about people being harrassed, and instead responded by saying that people found her sexuality "offensive".
* If the article is correct, it seems they blanketly ban "gay" - even if it's in your name. Do they automatically ban anyone who puts the word "straight" somewhere in their profile, even in another context?
And like I asked before, WHAT does your sexual orientation NEED to be displayed for? So you can get a higher score in something? WHY BOTHER? I don't put "I love the ladies" in my profile
Of course, the decision of what people should want to put in their profile should be based on what Doctor_Jest (688315) thinks should go in his profile. Heaven forbid that someone should have a different point of view.
Supposing MS disagreed with you? You wouldn't moan if your account was suspended without warning?
A straight person doesn't need to mention it, as they're by far in the majority, so it can be assumed by default most of the time. And a straight person might still mention similar things, such as saying they're married.
I'm also not sure that "I can't think why someone else would need to say this" is grounds for restricting this - I thought somewhere like Slashdot is the last place I'd have to explain this.
or maybe even shut up about your sexual orientation like all of us straight people do about ours
Oh yes, straight people never talk about their relationships of their marriage or sexuality. Except for the fact that it's broadcasted all over the place, both by individuals, and in the media. Sure, you don't specify being straight, but that's because there's no need to. But you never shut up about the rest of it, whilst non-straight people are expected to keep it behind closed doors.
I guess to put it into terms that might be more understandable here: Why does it seem like Linux users are always talking about how they use Linux, when most people just use computers and don't say what OS is? Why, when looking for software, are you more likely to ask for "Linux software", when a Windows user would just as for some software?
The answer ought to be obvious.
And would we claim that Linux users should "shut up" about their OS, as if suggesting that you never ever hear anyone talk about Windows? That would be absurd.
If any kind of religious indoctrination is abusive, then I think that's far more of an issue with the preaching "You'll go to hell if you do or don't do/believe such-and-such". Whilst thankfully this is less common these days, in the past at least, this was something that seemed to be quite widespread, including in schools.
Yeah, I'm sure the world will be turned to "shit" by someone posting on Slashdot(!)
For heaven's sake, if you disagree, then say so, and try to make some kind of rational debate about it, rather than just spewing abuse.
How is that any improvement to using one email account for normal, and one email account for signing up to things? I mean, surely the point of this filtering method was to avoid the need for using two separate accounts...
where I don't think there has been any conviction over drawn images; even the IWF admit it's not illegal
I was careful to say fictional images, not drawn images. The latter are legal, because there's not a law against it (though that will change in a law that's going through Parliament at the moment). "Realistic" fictional images however are illegal - and people have been convicted as a result of copy-and-paste jobs, that do not involve any actual child.
All I know is that here, no one would take anything seriously if it involved people over 16, even all the news articles I read about CP arrests specifically say that the images depicted people "under 16".
I'm in the UK too - I'd like to believe that many would protest it, but there are also many who won't. As soon as the "child pr0n" claim is thrown about, all logic goes out the window. Even with the recent law against adult images, there are plenty who have eagerly supported the law.
Whilst it is technically possible for a jury to return Not Guilty even if someone has broken the law, on the grounds that they disagree with the law, AFAIK this is a little known fact, and rarely happens - I'm not convinced it will happen for something as taboo as this, and I fear that chances are, a jury will just convict someone for breaking the law.
But legislation without enforcement still has chilling effects. Perhaps it would be laughed out of court, but can you be sure? Are you willing to be a test case?
I'd like to think that cases involving fictional porn should equally be laughed out of court - but people have been convicted, and sent to prison as a result. Sadly there are a lot of fucked up judges, and people who sit on a jury, out there.
You are confusing the age of consent with the law on indecent images. They are not the same thing at all. It might be legal for me have sex with a 17 year old, but I not legally able to take pornographic photos of someone under the age of 18 without signed parental consent.
Yes, that was exactly the very point I was making. I stated "the law now covers images up to 18, even though the age of consent is 16".
An image of 16-17 year olds would be covered by the law, and presumably blocked by the IWF - however, it is highly unreasonable to refer to it as a child abuse image, since no child has been abused in its production.
And soon in the UK, they'll be dropping the requirement of being "realistic"...
but the government has already set its sights on extreme and violent porn [although to be fair to the IWF, they apparently want nothing to do filtering this].
Just to clarify "set its sights" - the law has passed, and is now in effect. Images of consenting adults (even where no one is harmed) can now be illegal to possess in the UK.
That's correct about the IWF - they'll only deal with it in the same way as material under the Obscene Publications Act, i.e., they'll only handle sites in the UK (or those uploaded by a British citizen), by reporting them to the police to take them down. They won't be blocking such images, they say.
The Government's guidance says that if we come across such material online, we should report it to the IWF - yet the IWF aren't dealing with it! It also makes a mockery of the Government passing a possession law, in that surely that should mean that it should be blocked too, just like child images?
the government, despite me hating them dearly for their repeated idiocy have not yet demanded 100% coverage, only said they'd like to see that.
The Government clearly have the power to make things happen - when they say "We'd like to see it", that pretty much implies that they are looking at ways of making it happen.
When the Home Office says "The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%.", are we to suppose that this involves things like "Writing to their ISPs as a customer and asking them nicely"?
Moreover, even if they don't pass a law - if the ISPs receive letters from the Government, chances are they will feel threatened into implementing it.
I'd like to see the existence of god disproved once and for all but that doesn't mean it's going to happen does it?
Bad analogy. You can't disprove the existence of God, but the Government clearly has the power to make this happen, through law if necessary. Anyhow, the Government hasn't merely expressed a "like", it's clearly stated that it's looking at ways of making it happen. A better analogy would be you saying you'd like a cup of tea, and were going to make one. If there's a kettle across the room and some tea bags, my bet is that fairly soon, you'll go and make a cup of tea.
AliasMarlowe and you are both twats. You're as dumb as the fundies if you spew such garbage. Piss off.
Blimey, I wish the worse that "fundies" ever did was post stuff that some people didn't like to hear on Slashdot.
And if that's the criterion, then surely that makes you "as dumb as the fundies" too...
Eventually the case was dropped when the police realised they had no case
The UK's planned law criminalising possession of cartoon pr0n will no doubt change this...
Last I heard it was a year after the police had dropped the case and they still didn't have the domain, or even their PCs, back.
Yes, this sort of thing is very worrying. When did "right to search" turn into "right to confiscate large amounts of expensive equipment, including their personal information, means to communicate, and equipment and data necessary for their livelihood"?
The recent Wikipedia fiasco suggests that anyone can see a blocked image just by accessing the image's URL directly, as it seems their blocking system is incapable of blocking images.
However, if they've randomly blocked a page with legal text as they like to do, you're out of luck.
Indeed. And another problem with the UK's censorship is that you don't even know the site is censored - they just falsely return a fake 404 error.
We should aspire to be like Saudi Arabia - their censorship system presents "an official government page instead, telling you that it is blocked. You can even fill in a form explaining why you think the site should be unblocked".