The First Amendment has no real part in this. The First Amendment is between you and the government, only. It does not come into play in contracts between you and a web site operator, unless the operator is a government entity itself. That might involve the First Amendment, but I doubt it will be a significant issue.
If you read the original article, it says that California passed a law saying that social media sites must delete content posted by minors on request. Since it's a law, presumably these sites can be prosecuted under those laws, and they are prosecuted by the government. So I do think there is a serious First Amendment issue here. If you give a quote to a newspaper reporter, and that newspaper includes your quote in an article they publish, and the newspaper is later prosecuted for distributing that newspaper after you change your mind, I think that would be a First Amendment issue as well for much the same reason.
If people post stuff on an online social media site, aren't they giving permission to publish it online? Can they really revoke that permission later? Aren't there First Amendment issues here? If I have a blog site with a public comments section, am I legally obligated to maintain that site forever so I can delete comments whenever someone turns 18 and demands it be deleted?
not to mention - when did it become illegal to lie on the internet...
It's called wire fraud, and it was illegal long before the Internet. Basically, it makes it a federal crime to use interstate electronic communications to knowingly spread false information for commercial gain.
From the FBI press release abut the guilty plea on possession of child porn:
According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven D. DeBrota, who is prosecuting the case for the government, Sachtleben could face five to 20 years in prison for the distribution charge and up to 10 years for the possession charge. Both charges also carry up to a $250,000 fine and lifetime supervised release if he is found to be guilty.
Does anyone besides me think it's ridiculous that a person can get 10 years in prison for possession of a JPEG image on his computer?
do a complete re-install of the OS and reload any data from backups.
What makes you think reinstalling the OS will get rid of the spyware? It could easily stored in the BIOS (many commercial laptop theft prevention services work this way and survive OS reinstalls, so why can't gov't. spyware?), or in some hardware modifications made to your device while in custody. They could easily install a hardware keylogger or a network monitoring device without your knowledge which phones home with all your secrets.
The big concern is back doors built into distributed binaries.
And what about the hardware? And how can you be sure the compilers aren't putting a little something extra into the binaries. There are so many places for NSA malware to hide it's scary. Could be in the BIOS, could be in the keyboard or graphics firmware, could be in the kernel placed there by a malicious compiler. Could be added to the kernel if some other trojan horse is allowed to run. And just because the kernel, etc. are open source doesn't mean they have perfect security. The operating system is incredibly complex, and all it takes is one flaw in one piece of code with root privileges (or without if a local privilege escalation vulnerability exists anywhere on the system, which it surely does), and that can be exploited to deliver a payload into the kernel (or BIOS, or something else). Really, if the NSA wants to see what you're doing on your Linux system, rest assured, they can.
But that would probably take many decades or even centuries. It may affect our grandchildren or great grandchildren but not us, so it sounds like a good plan for our immediate energy needs.
was testing it in Boston at the time of the Boston marathon bombing, and reports that the app picked up signals of distress in the days after the attack."
Would have been a bit more useful if it had picked up the stress in the days before the attack!
Maybe it's the alcohol... But I really have no idea what the summary is talking about.
They're talking about Firefox, but astonishingly, don't mention that in the summary. At least, I tried it with Firefox and it works. Maybe it works in other browsers, too, but I'm too lazy to experiment. It is a useful shortcut that I didn't know about.
Because our compasses can't point to them. They just spin and spin...
Actually, no. Our compasses would point to them, the same way a water molecule, which has no electric charge but does have an electric dipole moment, tends to align itself to the electric field generated by ions in a solution.
According to special relativity, magnetic and electric fields can be "mixed" by Lorentz boosts (i.e. moving from one inertial reference frame to another that is moving with respect to the first one.) As a result, some say that a magnetic field is nothing more than an electric field as viewed by a moving observer. That isn't quite correct. The quantity E^2-B^2 (the square of the electric field minus the square of the magnetic field) is a Lorentz invariant. It is the same according to all observers. That means that if the magnitude of the electric (or magnetic) field is greater than the magnitude of the magnetic (or electric) field in one frame of reference, it is in all frames of reference. So a purely magnetic field can never be described as a purely electric field as seen by a moving observer.
In particular, Maxwell's equations, if valid in one inertial frame of reference, are valid in all frames. One of Maxwell's equations is div B = 0, which says there are no magnetic monopoles. A violation of this equation in one reference frame would be seen as a violation in all frames. That is a magnetic monopole in one frame of reference would be seen as a magnetic monopole in all frames of reference, despite the fact that in frames in which it is moving, it will generate an electric, as well as magnetic field, just as an electric charge, when moving, produces a magnetic field as well as an electric field.
A good proxy server is going to allow your system administrators to decrypt your SSL connection.
Yes and no. Yes, a proxy can do MITM attacks, but no, barring a key compromise, it can't do so undetectably.
Who says it has to be undetectably? If it's a workplace computer, the IT department can simply state that as a matter of policy, their firewall decrypts SSL and SSH traffic internally to ensure people are following the rules, and they can even install root certificates in users' browsers to make this possible. (Otherwise, your SSL connections would simply be blocked at the firewall.) None of this is typically secret; it's just company policy: if you want to be able to have SSL and SSH sessions that go through the firewall, you must play by their rules.
Are the cars marked or painted with the company names and/or logos? If they are just plain cars, how are the airport police identifying these cars as belonging to a Rideshare service, as opposed to private individuals picking up or dropping off a friend?
As far as I know, Aaron Swartz wasn't even a student, faculty member, or employee of MIT, so why does MIT have a duty to defend him? He was arrested for trespassing when he was in a networking closet where he had no business being. If someone breaks into your home, do you have a duty to defend them if they're prosecuted, even if they're being prosecuted over-zealously?
What's most surprising about this story to me is that any patients would sign such a contract. According to the article, it is supposedly to increase privacy protections for the patient, but how many dentists go around spilling the beans about their patients' teeth? And are your tooth secrets that serious that you'd be willing to sign over copyright of your internet posts so your dentist will keep them? Are you really that afraid your friends will find out you don't floss regularly?
Known Child Porn is blocked by all or most UK ISPs anyway. There is no opt-out of this.
Jason.
Yes, there is. The opt-out is the web blocking circumvention tools described in the article which are now themselves blocked by default, but you can opt-out of that.
Canadians don't necessarily have the exact same values as Americans, and one of those values is that hate speech is criminal rather than protected.
There's a difference between laws and values. I think many Americans would agree that not all American laws reflect values that all American's hold. Similarly, just because Canada has much less protection for freedom of speech in law doesn't mean that Canadians don't value free speech. I'm Canadian, and myself and virtually every other Canadian that I've talked to on this matter hates Canadian hate speech laws and wishes we had the same protection for freedom of speech as America has. Of course, not all Canadians feel this way, but it is a huge generalization to assume all or most Canadians agree with these laws or that they somehow reflect Canadian "values".
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the whole point of Java is that it runs in a sandbox so applets don't NEED to be trusted. Are they admitting failure here?
Posting to erase moderation mistake.
Posting to point out moderation mistake.
The First Amendment has no real part in this. The First Amendment is between you and the government, only. It does not come into play in contracts between you and a web site operator, unless the operator is a government entity itself. That might involve the First Amendment, but I doubt it will be a significant issue.
If you read the original article, it says that California passed a law saying that social media sites must delete content posted by minors on request. Since it's a law, presumably these sites can be prosecuted under those laws, and they are prosecuted by the government. So I do think there is a serious First Amendment issue here. If you give a quote to a newspaper reporter, and that newspaper includes your quote in an article they publish, and the newspaper is later prosecuted for distributing that newspaper after you change your mind, I think that would be a First Amendment issue as well for much the same reason.
If people post stuff on an online social media site, aren't they giving permission to publish it online? Can they really revoke that permission later? Aren't there First Amendment issues here? If I have a blog site with a public comments section, am I legally obligated to maintain that site forever so I can delete comments whenever someone turns 18 and demands it be deleted?
not to mention - when did it become illegal to lie on the internet...
It's called wire fraud, and it was illegal long before the Internet. Basically, it makes it a federal crime to use interstate electronic communications to knowingly spread false information for commercial gain.
From the FBI press release abut the guilty plea on possession of child porn: According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven D. DeBrota, who is prosecuting the case for the government, Sachtleben could face five to 20 years in prison for the distribution charge and up to 10 years for the possession charge. Both charges also carry up to a $250,000 fine and lifetime supervised release if he is found to be guilty.
Does anyone besides me think it's ridiculous that a person can get 10 years in prison for possession of a JPEG image on his computer?
See subject line.
do a complete re-install of the OS and reload any data from backups.
What makes you think reinstalling the OS will get rid of the spyware? It could easily stored in the BIOS (many commercial laptop theft prevention services work this way and survive OS reinstalls, so why can't gov't. spyware?), or in some hardware modifications made to your device while in custody. They could easily install a hardware keylogger or a network monitoring device without your knowledge which phones home with all your secrets.
The big concern is back doors built into distributed binaries.
And what about the hardware? And how can you be sure the compilers aren't putting a little something extra into the binaries. There are so many places for NSA malware to hide it's scary. Could be in the BIOS, could be in the keyboard or graphics firmware, could be in the kernel placed there by a malicious compiler. Could be added to the kernel if some other trojan horse is allowed to run. And just because the kernel, etc. are open source doesn't mean they have perfect security. The operating system is incredibly complex, and all it takes is one flaw in one piece of code with root privileges (or without if a local privilege escalation vulnerability exists anywhere on the system, which it surely does), and that can be exploited to deliver a payload into the kernel (or BIOS, or something else). Really, if the NSA wants to see what you're doing on your Linux system, rest assured, they can.
They cannot find what you are not carrying.
Actually, that isn't necessarily true. I have heard of cases where people were required to log into their e-mail accounts at the border.
But that would probably take many decades or even centuries. It may affect our grandchildren or great grandchildren but not us, so it sounds like a good plan for our immediate energy needs.
was testing it in Boston at the time of the Boston marathon bombing, and reports that the app picked up signals of distress in the days after the attack."
Would have been a bit more useful if it had picked up the stress in the days before the attack!
Ooops. My bad. Reading the summary more carefully, they do mention it works in Firefox, Explorer and Chrome.
Maybe it's the alcohol... But I really have no idea what the summary is talking about.
They're talking about Firefox, but astonishingly, don't mention that in the summary. At least, I tried it with Firefox and it works. Maybe it works in other browsers, too, but I'm too lazy to experiment. It is a useful shortcut that I didn't know about.
I suppose the Native Americans didn't use maps or globes?
I'm sure they used maps, but as they weren't a seafaring race, I doubt they had globes.
Because our compasses can't point to them. They just spin and spin...
Actually, no. Our compasses would point to them, the same way a water molecule, which has no electric charge but does have an electric dipole moment, tends to align itself to the electric field generated by ions in a solution.
According to special relativity, magnetic and electric fields can be "mixed" by Lorentz boosts (i.e. moving from one inertial reference frame to another that is moving with respect to the first one.) As a result, some say that a magnetic field is nothing more than an electric field as viewed by a moving observer. That isn't quite correct. The quantity E^2-B^2 (the square of the electric field minus the square of the magnetic field) is a Lorentz invariant. It is the same according to all observers. That means that if the magnitude of the electric (or magnetic) field is greater than the magnitude of the magnetic (or electric) field in one frame of reference, it is in all frames of reference. So a purely magnetic field can never be described as a purely electric field as seen by a moving observer.
In particular, Maxwell's equations, if valid in one inertial frame of reference, are valid in all frames. One of Maxwell's equations is div B = 0, which says there are no magnetic monopoles. A violation of this equation in one reference frame would be seen as a violation in all frames. That is a magnetic monopole in one frame of reference would be seen as a magnetic monopole in all frames of reference, despite the fact that in frames in which it is moving, it will generate an electric, as well as magnetic field, just as an electric charge, when moving, produces a magnetic field as well as an electric field.
A good proxy server is going to allow your system administrators to decrypt your SSL connection.
Yes and no. Yes, a proxy can do MITM attacks, but no, barring a key compromise, it can't do so undetectably.
Who says it has to be undetectably? If it's a workplace computer, the IT department can simply state that as a matter of policy, their firewall decrypts SSL and SSH traffic internally to ensure people are following the rules, and they can even install root certificates in users' browsers to make this possible. (Otherwise, your SSL connections would simply be blocked at the firewall.) None of this is typically secret; it's just company policy: if you want to be able to have SSL and SSH sessions that go through the firewall, you must play by their rules.
Are the cars marked or painted with the company names and/or logos? If they are just plain cars, how are the airport police identifying these cars as belonging to a Rideshare service, as opposed to private individuals picking up or dropping off a friend?
As far as I know, Aaron Swartz wasn't even a student, faculty member, or employee of MIT, so why does MIT have a duty to defend him? He was arrested for trespassing when he was in a networking closet where he had no business being. If someone breaks into your home, do you have a duty to defend them if they're prosecuted, even if they're being prosecuted over-zealously?
What's most surprising about this story to me is that any patients would sign such a contract. According to the article, it is supposedly to increase privacy protections for the patient, but how many dentists go around spilling the beans about their patients' teeth? And are your tooth secrets that serious that you'd be willing to sign over copyright of your internet posts so your dentist will keep them? Are you really that afraid your friends will find out you don't floss regularly?
Known Child Porn is blocked by all or most UK ISPs anyway. There is no opt-out of this.
Jason.
Yes, there is. The opt-out is the web blocking circumvention tools described in the article which are now themselves blocked by default, but you can opt-out of that.
The idea that an unplanned mishap would result in such a buiding's freefall--with no internal resistance--is an absurdity.
Unplanned mishap? Unplanned mishap?!?!? Are you serious here, or trolling? 9/11 was no more an unplanned mishap than was the Pearl Harbor bombing.
You mean the Pirates Of The Caribbean? They did pretty well at the box office didn't they?
Which set the unfortunate precedent that movies don't need a sensible plot to be successful. This summer is the result. So, yeah, I blame Pirates too.
Canadians don't necessarily have the exact same values as Americans, and one of those values is that hate speech is criminal rather than protected.
There's a difference between laws and values. I think many Americans would agree that not all American laws reflect values that all American's hold. Similarly, just because Canada has much less protection for freedom of speech in law doesn't mean that Canadians don't value free speech. I'm Canadian, and myself and virtually every other Canadian that I've talked to on this matter hates Canadian hate speech laws and wishes we had the same protection for freedom of speech as America has. Of course, not all Canadians feel this way, but it is a huge generalization to assume all or most Canadians agree with these laws or that they somehow reflect Canadian "values".