The conclusion I draw from this article is that the backscatter machine alone doesn't provide security, but it can in concert with other security measures. Let's say I want to smuggle plastic explosives (PE) onto a plane. Well, they have chemical sniffers that can detect even trace amounts of explosives, so it would have to be tightly sealed in an almost perfect container. Having a pancake shaped blob of the stuff taped to your belly may get past the backscatter machine, but it would fail a chemical sniffer test miserably. And if the explosives are sealed in such a way as to fool the sniffers, such a package certainly wouldn't fool the backscatter machine. And as for the knives and guns which might get past if taped properly, they would be picked up by the metal detector.
I'm not saying the security if perfect; my point is only that you can't analyze the effectiveness of each of the security measures individually. They have to be studied collectively.
Correct. And another very significant point about this case is that the defendant was asked by the plaintiff to remove the link before the suit was filed and the defendant refused. So a verdict in favor of the plaintiff wouldn't necessarily imperil all those with websites containing links, but merely those that refuse to take down links to defamatory material when asked. I'm not saying that would be a good thing, but not nearly so disastrous as the headline makes it sound.
Along with Drupal and Wordpress, Joomla is one of the big three open source CMS solutions out there. As far as I know, it is very current software, and highly regarded.
What is the difference in buying, customizing, then reselling an XBox and in buying, customizing, and reselling a vehicle made by Ford?
There are many modifications you could make to a Ford which would make it illegal to sell. Adding nitrous so you can outrun the cops is illegal in many states, for instance.
Conversely, there are many mods you could make to an Xbox that are perfectly legal, like painting it a different color.
Syfert hasn't actually done anything wrong. It is perfectly legal for Syfert to sell these self-help booklets; even if it is not legal, they have no standing to sue. Only a buyer who let's say paid $20 and got rubbish advice would have standing to sue for that.
That's not necessarily true. Third parties can sue for tortuous interference if one party provides another party with assistance in committing civil infractions. Now, defense attorneys have immunity from such claims when providing legal advice for providing a defense. So the question is, is this lawyer who is selling these instruction books really their attorney? I think that's what's at issue here.
I wasn't aware the TSA sought permission from the ACLU before implementing their security policies. I suppose the ACLU happily endorsed the full body scanners and enhanced pat downs.
It is an attempt to dictate when they can cause damage by their departure. Those companies are political creatures, and should not be given a pass just because they're "a business".
But what exactly do you mean by "given a pass"? The point is they don't need a pass to move out of the country. They may very well cause damage by their departure, but that doesn't take away their right to leave. That is what fundamentally separates communist countries from free countries: the right of exit.
It is _trivial_ to transmit data undetected into the US (nice to meet you, internet. how long have you been there?); what justification is there for searching laptops in the first place?
But you have to transmit the data to something. One of the things they look for when searching a laptop are clues as to which server systems you've been logging into. If they see by your browser history, for example, that you regularly visit hotmail.com, you'll probably be asked to log into your e-mail account so they can look for things there. If they don't find too many documents on your computer, they'll ask where you store them and have you log in there, as well. So, while the laptop might not contain the illegal data, it might contain clues as to where the Customs officers may find them.
I thought tapping into power lines to steal electricity is illegal. In fact, even using an induction antenna to steal power is illegal. Will the military have a special contract with the power companies to let them do this?
Actually it is typical. What I'm talking about is when the key is used. You will see that the key has several positions, and usually two of them are marked 'normal' and 'service'. In most elevators, especially those in apartment buildings, the key can be removed when turned to service or normal mode. When moving, you ask the super to put one of the elevators in service mode (he then takes the key with him). Then the elevator keeps the doors open so you can move furniture in and out of the elevator. You then have to hold the close button until the doors close the entire way. If you let go before the doors completely close, they open again. Once the doors are closed you can pick a destination floor. I've helped many friends move in and out of quite a few different apartment buildings in three different cities. They all work the same way.
Not exactly. In a couple of apartments I've lived in, when the elevator is in service mode, you have to press and hold the destination floor button for five seconds, then the door closes and goes to the destination floor. (Also, when in service mode, the elevators won't stop at other floors where people are waiting for an elevator.)
Can you elaborate? I'm not qute sure I see what the difference would be in a practical sense.
Possibly what the GP means is that if Fair Use were a right and not merely a defense, then people (or businesses) could be sued for violating the fair use rights of others. For instance, if a publisher added DRM to a product which prevented its use in an educational setting, then under the fair use right model, perhaps that publisher could be sued. (I'm only guessing at what the GP meant, so please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Personally, I don't think such a right would be a good idea. It might put the onus on all publishers, including private individuals with blogs, to ensure that the content was provided in such a way that all fair use rights could be utilized. How far would that go? If a school wanted copies of my private diaries to use in a course, would I be obliged to provide them with copies? Admittedly, that's an extreme example, but where exactly would the line be drawn? Would publishers be required to ensure their content is available in the widest variety of formats? That could cost them a lot of money. I think having a fair use defense as opposed to a right strikes the right balance between access for education and review purposes on the one hand, and the rights of the publisher to release or not release content in the formats of their choice.
Actually, it grabs cookies, so even if you do not transmit your signon stuff in the clear, the attacker can still use your session. Read the linked article for more details.
While it's true that if only the login page is protected by SSL and the rest of the session is unencrypted then your cookies may be exposed, but if the website uses a complete SSL solution after login (as most banks for instance do) then you should still be safe.
As far as I understand, what this tool does is it sniffs the data in unencrypted WiFi sessions, determines when people are logging in (using a password) to a website that does not employ encryption, and allows the user to hijack their session.
This affects you only if you are connecting to the Internet wirelessly, do not employ encryption on your wireless link, and are visiting a website that doesn't use SSL (sorry for the acronym: it stands for secure sockets layer and is a protocol for encrypting connections to websites (those that use the https prefix.)).
To protect yourself, be sure your wireless equipment is configured to use encryption (always a good idea) and if you log into websites that require a password, be sure the site is using SSL (also always a good idea.)
This level of interaction is unique and I've never seen a "printer" with that sort of functionality.
Before CRTs became commonplace it was routine to interact with a computer through a teletype. That is the primary reason for the terseness of the standard unix commands. Line editors like ed are much less opaque when your command input is being recorded on paper.
The very first time I ever played a text adventure was Dungeon on a DECwriter hardcopy terminal. I kept the printouts for some time after that, but I'm afraid by now, they've been lost. I was about 8 years old at the time, and it was at an open house at the university in the town where I grew up. I remember my dad having to drag me away. It was several years later before I had a chance to play a text adventure again. (A stripped down version of Adventure on a Commodore PET with 8K of RAM.) I remember what a luxury it seemed several years later to play Zork on a Commodore 64.
This is actually a concurring opinion, and not the main opinion. As such, little can be gleaned from it regarding what the actual case is about.
This is the main opinion. Quoting the summary:
The issue we address in this case is whether a statute that limits certain corporations’ successor liability for personal injury claims of asbestos exposure violates the prohibition against retroactive laws contained in article I, section 16 of the Texas Constitution1 as applied to a pending action. We hold that it does, and therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals2 and remand the case to the trial court.
So as we can see, it's a rather dull case concerning asbestos.
You might want to have a think about who's really being humiliated in this situation though. I don't think it's me.
This is a necessary step to body cavity searches. Which are coming eventually.
It will come the first time someone tries to sneak explosives onto a plane in their rear end. Remember what happened after the shoe bomber? We all have to take our shoes off now.
I think many people would also use them as a reason to have such laws. No one likes WBC. No one.
But that's pretty much the point, isn't it? The test of a country's commitment to freedom of speech is whether or not they are willing to protect the right of free speech for those groups that no one likes.
Slashdot Mirror
The conclusion I draw from this article is that the backscatter machine alone doesn't provide security, but it can in concert with other security measures. Let's say I want to smuggle plastic explosives (PE) onto a plane. Well, they have chemical sniffers that can detect even trace amounts of explosives, so it would have to be tightly sealed in an almost perfect container. Having a pancake shaped blob of the stuff taped to your belly may get past the backscatter machine, but it would fail a chemical sniffer test miserably. And if the explosives are sealed in such a way as to fool the sniffers, such a package certainly wouldn't fool the backscatter machine. And as for the knives and guns which might get past if taped properly, they would be picked up by the metal detector.
I'm not saying the security if perfect; my point is only that you can't analyze the effectiveness of each of the security measures individually. They have to be studied collectively.
Correct. And another very significant point about this case is that the defendant was asked by the plaintiff to remove the link before the suit was filed and the defendant refused. So a verdict in favor of the plaintiff wouldn't necessarily imperil all those with websites containing links, but merely those that refuse to take down links to defamatory material when asked. I'm not saying that would be a good thing, but not nearly so disastrous as the headline makes it sound.
Haven't the felons "paid their debt to society"? Why is the USA continuing to punish them? I've heard you don't let felons vote.
Getting out of jury duty is a punishment?
The most interesting behavior that i recall in those arcades was crush roller's. Only 2 "ghosts" but damn clever.
I agree. Those fish were way smarter than the PacMan ghosts.
People still use Joomla?
Along with Drupal and Wordpress, Joomla is one of the big three open source CMS solutions out there. As far as I know, it is very current software, and highly regarded.
What is the difference in buying, customizing, then reselling an XBox and in buying, customizing, and reselling a vehicle made by Ford?
There are many modifications you could make to a Ford which would make it illegal to sell. Adding nitrous so you can outrun the cops is illegal in many states, for instance.
Conversely, there are many mods you could make to an Xbox that are perfectly legal, like painting it a different color.
Yep. It's called felony murder. As you say, most states have a similar law.
Syfert hasn't actually done anything wrong. It is perfectly legal for Syfert to sell these self-help booklets; even if it is not legal, they have no standing to sue. Only a buyer who let's say paid $20 and got rubbish advice would have standing to sue for that.
That's not necessarily true. Third parties can sue for tortuous interference if one party provides another party with assistance in committing civil infractions. Now, defense attorneys have immunity from such claims when providing legal advice for providing a defense. So the question is, is this lawyer who is selling these instruction books really their attorney? I think that's what's at issue here.
ACLU will never let it happen.
I wasn't aware the TSA sought permission from the ACLU before implementing their security policies. I suppose the ACLU happily endorsed the full body scanners and enhanced pat downs.
Have sexy agents of the opposite sex do the manual tapping method.
People will line up for the privilege. Some of them will even stand up for it.
Guys will. I doubt too many chicks will like this idea.
It is an attempt to dictate when they can cause damage by their departure. Those companies are political creatures, and should not be given a pass just because they're "a business".
But what exactly do you mean by "given a pass"? The point is they don't need a pass to move out of the country. They may very well cause damage by their departure, but that doesn't take away their right to leave. That is what fundamentally separates communist countries from free countries: the right of exit.
Next time, take a broken hard drive with you. That will give them a challenge. :-)
The greater the challenge for them, the longer the wait for you...
It is _trivial_ to transmit data undetected into the US (nice to meet you, internet. how long have you been there?); what justification is there for searching laptops in the first place?
But you have to transmit the data to something. One of the things they look for when searching a laptop are clues as to which server systems you've been logging into. If they see by your browser history, for example, that you regularly visit hotmail.com, you'll probably be asked to log into your e-mail account so they can look for things there. If they don't find too many documents on your computer, they'll ask where you store them and have you log in there, as well. So, while the laptop might not contain the illegal data, it might contain clues as to where the Customs officers may find them.
"Lawful coercion" does exist: it's called "arrest" or "detainment".
Really. I didn't realize that sex was part of the deal when you're arrested.
I thought tapping into power lines to steal electricity is illegal. In fact, even using an induction antenna to steal power is illegal. Will the military have a special contract with the power companies to let them do this?
Actually it is typical. What I'm talking about is when the key is used. You will see that the key has several positions, and usually two of them are marked 'normal' and 'service'. In most elevators, especially those in apartment buildings, the key can be removed when turned to service or normal mode. When moving, you ask the super to put one of the elevators in service mode (he then takes the key with him). Then the elevator keeps the doors open so you can move furniture in and out of the elevator. You then have to hold the close button until the doors close the entire way. If you let go before the doors completely close, they open again. Once the doors are closed you can pick a destination floor. I've helped many friends move in and out of quite a few different apartment buildings in three different cities. They all work the same way.
Not exactly. In a couple of apartments I've lived in, when the elevator is in service mode, you have to press and hold the destination floor button for five seconds, then the door closes and goes to the destination floor. (Also, when in service mode, the elevators won't stop at other floors where people are waiting for an elevator.)
Can you elaborate? I'm not qute sure I see what the difference would be in a practical sense.
Possibly what the GP means is that if Fair Use were a right and not merely a defense, then people (or businesses) could be sued for violating the fair use rights of others. For instance, if a publisher added DRM to a product which prevented its use in an educational setting, then under the fair use right model, perhaps that publisher could be sued. (I'm only guessing at what the GP meant, so please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Personally, I don't think such a right would be a good idea. It might put the onus on all publishers, including private individuals with blogs, to ensure that the content was provided in such a way that all fair use rights could be utilized. How far would that go? If a school wanted copies of my private diaries to use in a course, would I be obliged to provide them with copies? Admittedly, that's an extreme example, but where exactly would the line be drawn? Would publishers be required to ensure their content is available in the widest variety of formats? That could cost them a lot of money. I think having a fair use defense as opposed to a right strikes the right balance between access for education and review purposes on the one hand, and the rights of the publisher to release or not release content in the formats of their choice.
Actually, it grabs cookies, so even if you do not transmit your signon stuff in the clear, the attacker can still use your session. Read the linked article for more details.
While it's true that if only the login page is protected by SSL and the rest of the session is unencrypted then your cookies may be exposed, but if the website uses a complete SSL solution after login (as most banks for instance do) then you should still be safe.
As far as I understand, what this tool does is it sniffs the data in unencrypted WiFi sessions, determines when people are logging in (using a password) to a website that does not employ encryption, and allows the user to hijack their session.
This affects you only if you are connecting to the Internet wirelessly, do not employ encryption on your wireless link, and are visiting a website that doesn't use SSL (sorry for the acronym: it stands for secure sockets layer and is a protocol for encrypting connections to websites (those that use the https prefix.)).
To protect yourself, be sure your wireless equipment is configured to use encryption (always a good idea) and if you log into websites that require a password, be sure the site is using SSL (also always a good idea.)
This level of interaction is unique and I've never seen a "printer" with that sort of functionality.
Before CRTs became commonplace it was routine to interact with a computer through a teletype. That is the primary reason for the terseness of the standard unix commands. Line editors like ed are much less opaque when your command input is being recorded on paper.
The very first time I ever played a text adventure was Dungeon on a DECwriter hardcopy terminal. I kept the printouts for some time after that, but I'm afraid by now, they've been lost. I was about 8 years old at the time, and it was at an open house at the university in the town where I grew up. I remember my dad having to drag me away. It was several years later before I had a chance to play a text adventure again. (A stripped down version of Adventure on a Commodore PET with 8K of RAM.) I remember what a luxury it seemed several years later to play Zork on a Commodore 64.
So what about the underwear bomber?
This is precisely why we now have these new pat down procedures.
Refreshingly pompous: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm
This is actually a concurring opinion, and not the main opinion. As such, little can be gleaned from it regarding what the actual case is about. This is the main opinion. Quoting the summary:
The issue we address in this case is whether a statute that limits certain corporations’ successor liability for personal injury claims of asbestos exposure violates the prohibition against retroactive laws contained in article I, section 16 of the Texas Constitution1 as applied to a pending action. We hold that it does, and therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals2 and remand the case to the trial court.
So as we can see, it's a rather dull case concerning asbestos.
Go ahead.
You might want to have a think about who's really being humiliated in this situation though. I don't think it's me.
This is a necessary step to body cavity searches. Which are coming eventually.
It will come the first time someone tries to sneak explosives onto a plane in their rear end. Remember what happened after the shoe bomber? We all have to take our shoes off now.
because they, legally, have to bear the fiscal responsibilities of their child until the child is either emancipated or turns 18. At least in the US.
Citation please?
I think many people would also use them as a reason to have such laws. No one likes WBC. No one.
But that's pretty much the point, isn't it? The test of a country's commitment to freedom of speech is whether or not they are willing to protect the right of free speech for those groups that no one likes.