The punishment for not remembering a 50 character password after 6 months of not using it is atrocious.
I RTFA and as I understand it, the password was used to encrypt his hard drive, and not some old file that happened to be lying around on it. As such, it is a bit harder to believe that he simply "forgot" the password. And more importantly, no where did it say he claimed to have forgotten the password; he simply refused to divulge it. I'm not saying I agree with this law, but it doesn't sound like a case of innocently forgetting one's password.
And you don't even have to RTFA. It's in the summary:
The programme, sold for just 1.79 pounds in the online Apple store, has now been labelled an 'aid to terrorists' by security experts and the US Department of Homeland Security is also examining how to protect airliners.
Read the wording very carefully, and notice how the DHS enters the story. Nowhere does it say the DHS has even heard of this app, let alone has it expressed any wish to ban it. The only call for a ban is from "unnamed security experts". Very clever wording there: you have to read very carefully. Could this have been put out by the makers of this app to boost sales?
I infer from Pinkfroot's "Share Data" page that their apps just get the ADS-B data over the Intertubes from people who have ADS-B receivers and make the data available.
And if I'd Read The Entire Fine Article, I wouldn't have had to infer; The Fine Article says exactly that:
The firm behind the app, Pinkfroot, uses a network of aircraft enthusiasts in Britain and abroad, who are equipped with ADS-B receivers costing around 200 pounds to intercept the information from aircraft and send it to a central
database.
Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to ban the receivers rather than the apps? It sounds like all the app is doing is aggregating data that's already available. A resourceful terrorist could write his own software to do that.
2-5, I can agree with, but your point 1 has some serious problems:
1) retribution: basically, punishment. The prisoner is paying his debt to society. This also acts as a catharsis for the prisoner himself.
There are three parts here, so lets deal with them one at a time. First, Saying that the reason we punish is for punishment is a circular statement. The word "retribution", which you also use, is more descriptive, but is really a nice word for "revenge".
As to your second point, a prisoner is only repaying their debt to society if they are doing useful work in prison which more than offsets the cost to incarcerate them, which isn't even approximately the case, even when they are doing hard manual labor.
As to your third point: let's not kid ourselves. We're not doing anyone a favor by putting them in prison. Yes, some people might come forward and confess to a crime out of a feeling of guilt, but after a couple of nights in the slammer, I'm sure the vast majority would probably regret that decision!
Rehabilitation has always been a tertiary goal behind punishment and deterrence.
Who says? First of all, saying that punishment is the main reason for punishment is a circular statement. Certainly deterrence is a goal as well as rehabilitation, but I'm not sure that all would place those two in the same order that you do.
There are good reasons to criminalize the sale or purchase of child pornography. Purchasing CP helps to feed the market, giving people the incentive and means to abuse more children. But I have still never heard a good argument for criminalizing the mere possession of child pornography, especially since some CP might not be commercial in origin at all (eg. adolescents sexting pictures to each other.)
This clearly illustrates that until lay persons learn to think otherwise in terms of privacy and security on systems and networks; nothing is going to get better.
No, what it clearly illustrates is the potential damage that can be done by laws which criminalize (with very long sentences) the mere possession of certain images on one's computer.
...And this wouldn't be a lot less of a problem if society weren't conditioned to grossly overreact and gang-stalk people because of a few images.
In before slippery slope assholes who believe that every person who looks up heroin online is destined to be a junkie.
Mod parent up! If this case teaches us anything, it teaches us that we should get rid of laws which criminalize possession of child pornography. I have yet to hear one good argument as to why possession should be illegal. (Obviously, manufacture of child pornography using real children should be criminal; I'm talking about possession here.)
The reason why you like social networking sites is precisely the reason why I dislike them, in that behaviour that was once rightfully considered crazy/creepy is now mainstream.
That's exactly what I love about Facebook. I used to be a total creep. Now I'm a very typical person. I haven't changed.
Locating: "my dog is lost; this was its serial number, please tell me where it is and who claims to be its current owner". That the company is not allowed to disclose without court order.
There are two very different pieces of information there. "where it is" (i.e. the missing dog) and "who claims to be the current owner." (if indeed anyone does.) It may well make sense that the latter piece of information should be protected unless demanded by a court order, but not the former. For all we know, the dog could have gone stray and is living in a city park.
The Justice department would still have to get a court order, as they do now. The issue is that they could do so for a civil infraction, as opposed to a criminal infraction. Why the government is involved at all in civil justice is beyond me? Isn't that the job of the plaintiff?
Actually, in the USA (which this story happens to be about), copyright law has both civil and criminal components. Ever notice the FBI warnings about fines and jail if you copy a DVD? There are real laws on the books to back that up. Most of it is in Title 17 of the United States Code.
Yes, in Canada you can't walk around holding a pistol and suing everyone who looks at you funny. You also can't start a chapter of the KKK, start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience. Oh, and queer-bashing? Also illegal. Why? Because you couldn't say or do the same things to someone that wasn't queer, and not get arrested/charged. That doesn't mean canada has lax free speech laws. That means Canada has a better system of protecting the rights of its citizens.
I guess it depends which rights you value more: the right to free speech, or the right not to be offended by others. There are legitimate reasons for valuing both rights, and reasonable people can differ. I happen to value the right of free speech more, but recognizing there may be different opinions on that issue, I merely said that Canada has lesser protection for freedom of speech than the United States. I didn't talk about overall rights.
Read of that case if you are interested in defamation law (but seek legal advice if you have a problem). It explains the legal tests for all of the defences. Since the defence of "responsible communications in matters of public interest" does not exist in US law, it means that American journalists and bloggers have a higher risk of liability for defamation than their Canadian counterparts. So which country has stronger freedom of expression?
The United States, by far. Yes, there may exist one specific defense in libel cases in Canada, but weighed against the much weaker freedom of speech guarantee in the Canadian constitution, as exemplified by the numerous hate speech laws and "Human Rights" Tribunals, there's no contest. Even in the area of libel, the burden of proof is different in Canada and the U.S. In the U.S., the burden is on the plaintiff to show the statements are false. In Canada, while the burden is not purely on the defendant to show the statements are true, it is not as squarely on the plaintiff, either.
rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Tne First Amendment doesn't have the qualifer, therefore it is slightly stronger.
Note that this is in theory. It is not necessarily true in practice, for either nation.
Yup. And it is very true in practice as well. Canada has hate speech laws which would be blatantly unconstitutional in the United States. In fact, it is illegal in Canada to simply deny the holocaust. The problem is, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is quite unlike the Bill of Rights in that it doesn't simply restrict government power, but it grants absolute rights. So a hate speech law, while abridging speech, is also protecting the rights of minorities not to be offended, and that right carries equal weight to the right of free speech. In finding a "balance", courts have allowed many hate speech laws to stand.
Where's the evidence it is fake? All I see is a Gizmodo posting that "It ain't true." with nothing at all to back it up.
While certainly not "proof", I think that the article in Gizmodo is a lot more credible. It mentions the fact that it is not the policy of DHS to contact local authorities in other countries to have them inform one of their citizens that he is banned from entering the U.S. for life, which is what the original story reported that DHS agents did. If someone is banned from entering the U.S., the DHS would inform them themselves, usually when they show up at a point of entry or apply for a visa.
Let's get rid of the candy and soda machines while we're at it. Not only does it promote unhealthy lifestyles, but is a disgusting display of consumerism within a so-called institute of education.
Problem is, these candy and soda machines are often used to fund the schools' athletic programs. So get rid of them in the name of health, and pretty soon the school has no football or basketball team. Which is healthier? Playing sports and cooling off with a cold cola afterward, or drinking water while sitting at home on the couch playing video games?
And by the way, healthier alternatives such as juice machines have a much lower profit margin.
Supposedly this would be equivalent to a magical Babelfish translator, since brain waves cannot be language specific. However, the existance of a meta-language behind all the many different human languages of the world has never been conclusively proven. Therefore I think something is fishy with the claim.
But if the claim is true, the possibilities are staggering. Not just for stroke patients, but for anyone. Imagine being able to travel to any country and speak in their native language. It may still be a few years away, but I think it's really cool. And would it be possible to transmit thoughts that aren't even expressible in any human language? This really does sound like an exciting beginning. I remember attending a lecture by Freeman Dyson many years ago where he proposed something similar.
Inconveniently, merely asserting a definition doesn't actually compel obedience on the part of the Universe.
As long as your definitions are consistent, though, you are not requiring the universe to obey anything. Take the speed of light for example. What does it mean to say that the speed of light is constant? It means that the distance covered by light in a specified unit of time will be constant. But if we define our unit of length to be the distance traveled by light in one second, then it will always be constant. My point is that two of the three quantities in the fine structure constant are arbitrary, and the third is determined by experiment.
The fine structure constant is given as being equal to "e^2/hc", so if the FSC is not a constant then one (or more) of the other values must also be a variable. Take your pick between:
If any of those constants turned out to in fact be variable, or even a "constant" which has varied over the lifetime of the universe, then the implications would be profound to say the least.
Actually, it is possible to work in fundamental units in which hbar = c = 1, so the latter two can be considered constant by definition.
British law is "loser pays", there's usually no need to sue for defence cost.
(IANAL. There may be some nuances here of which I am unaware).
Yes, but from what I understand, the British Chiropractic Association did not actually lose the case, but rather they withdrew their suit after losing a judgment on a point in the case regarding interpretation of Singh's statements. Do they still have to pay the legal costs he had accumulated up to that point, including his appeal costs on that particular ruling?
I couldn't find in any documentation any information regarding who has to foot the $200K bill, so I am assuming Dr Singh had to pay.
Devil's Advocate here, but does that mean they shouldn't be sued for their infringement?
I paid to see the film at the cinema. I feel ripped off twice over; I paid for something I could have received for free, and the film wasn't all that great anyway. I can't get a refund from the movie company or the cinema, but I can still be peeved at the folks who leaked it. IMHO, by the way, it's the leak who should be sued, not the consumers.
I'll play Devil's advocate as well. Are you sure "consumers" is the right word here?
Slashdot Mirror
The punishment for not remembering a 50 character password after 6 months of not using it is atrocious.
I RTFA and as I understand it, the password was used to encrypt his hard drive, and not some old file that happened to be lying around on it. As such, it is a bit harder to believe that he simply "forgot" the password. And more importantly, no where did it say he claimed to have forgotten the password; he simply refused to divulge it. I'm not saying I agree with this law, but it doesn't sound like a case of innocently forgetting one's password.
The programme, sold for just 1.79 pounds in the online Apple store, has now been labelled an 'aid to terrorists' by security experts and the US Department of Homeland Security is also examining how to protect airliners.
Read the wording very carefully, and notice how the DHS enters the story. Nowhere does it say the DHS has even heard of this app, let alone has it expressed any wish to ban it. The only call for a ban is from "unnamed security experts". Very clever wording there: you have to read very carefully. Could this have been put out by the makers of this app to boost sales?
I infer from Pinkfroot's "Share Data" page that their apps just get the ADS-B data over the Intertubes from people who have ADS-B receivers and make the data available.
And if I'd Read The Entire Fine Article, I wouldn't have had to infer; The Fine Article says exactly that:
The firm behind the app, Pinkfroot, uses a network of aircraft enthusiasts in Britain and abroad, who are equipped with ADS-B receivers costing around 200 pounds to intercept the information from aircraft and send it to a central database.
Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to ban the receivers rather than the apps? It sounds like all the app is doing is aggregating data that's already available. A resourceful terrorist could write his own software to do that.
1) retribution: basically, punishment. The prisoner is paying his debt to society. This also acts as a catharsis for the prisoner himself.
There are three parts here, so lets deal with them one at a time. First, Saying that the reason we punish is for punishment is a circular statement. The word "retribution", which you also use, is more descriptive, but is really a nice word for "revenge".
As to your second point, a prisoner is only repaying their debt to society if they are doing useful work in prison which more than offsets the cost to incarcerate them, which isn't even approximately the case, even when they are doing hard manual labor.
As to your third point: let's not kid ourselves. We're not doing anyone a favor by putting them in prison. Yes, some people might come forward and confess to a crime out of a feeling of guilt, but after a couple of nights in the slammer, I'm sure the vast majority would probably regret that decision!
But as I said, your points 2-5 are valid.
Rehabilitation has always been a tertiary goal behind punishment and deterrence.
Who says? First of all, saying that punishment is the main reason for punishment is a circular statement. Certainly deterrence is a goal as well as rehabilitation, but I'm not sure that all would place those two in the same order that you do.
Freedom of association also means an employer can agree to hire only union workers.
Or non-union workers.
Am I the only Slashdot reader old enough (and a porn consumer for long enough) to know the history of child porn laws?
It's amazing how many times I've needed to post something like: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1790178&cid=33671018
There are good reasons to criminalize the sale or purchase of child pornography. Purchasing CP helps to feed the market, giving people the incentive and means to abuse more children. But I have still never heard a good argument for criminalizing the mere possession of child pornography, especially since some CP might not be commercial in origin at all (eg. adolescents sexting pictures to each other.)
This clearly illustrates that until lay persons learn to think otherwise in terms of privacy and security on systems and networks; nothing is going to get better.
No, what it clearly illustrates is the potential damage that can be done by laws which criminalize (with very long sentences) the mere possession of certain images on one's computer.
...And this wouldn't be a lot less of a problem if society weren't conditioned to grossly overreact and gang-stalk people because of a few images. In before slippery slope assholes who believe that every person who looks up heroin online is destined to be a junkie.
Mod parent up! If this case teaches us anything, it teaches us that we should get rid of laws which criminalize possession of child pornography. I have yet to hear one good argument as to why possession should be illegal. (Obviously, manufacture of child pornography using real children should be criminal; I'm talking about possession here.)
The reason why you like social networking sites is precisely the reason why I dislike them, in that behaviour that was once rightfully considered crazy/creepy is now mainstream.
That's exactly what I love about Facebook. I used to be a total creep. Now I'm a very typical person. I haven't changed.
Although the situation is a bit odd, I approve of a law which requires court action before any who isn't me can be provided my location.
Your location, yes. But I think the owner is trying to ascertain the location of a dog. Should dogs really have all the same privacy rights as people?
Locating: "my dog is lost; this was its serial number, please tell me where it is and who claims to be its current owner". That the company is not allowed to disclose without court order.
There are two very different pieces of information there. "where it is" (i.e. the missing dog) and "who claims to be the current owner." (if indeed anyone does.) It may well make sense that the latter piece of information should be protected unless demanded by a court order, but not the former. For all we know, the dog could have gone stray and is living in a city park.
The Justice department would still have to get a court order, as they do now. The issue is that they could do so for a civil infraction, as opposed to a criminal infraction. Why the government is involved at all in civil justice is beyond me? Isn't that the job of the plaintiff?
Actually, in the USA (which this story happens to be about), copyright law has both civil and criminal components. Ever notice the FBI warnings about fines and jail if you copy a DVD? There are real laws on the books to back that up. Most of it is in Title 17 of the United States Code.
Yes, in Canada you can't walk around holding a pistol and suing everyone who looks at you funny. You also can't start a chapter of the KKK, start publishing material that has no value and offends a large audience. Oh, and queer-bashing? Also illegal. Why? Because you couldn't say or do the same things to someone that wasn't queer, and not get arrested/charged. That doesn't mean canada has lax free speech laws. That means Canada has a better system of protecting the rights of its citizens.
I guess it depends which rights you value more: the right to free speech, or the right not to be offended by others. There are legitimate reasons for valuing both rights, and reasonable people can differ. I happen to value the right of free speech more, but recognizing there may be different opinions on that issue, I merely said that Canada has lesser protection for freedom of speech than the United States. I didn't talk about overall rights.
Read of that case if you are interested in defamation law (but seek legal advice if you have a problem). It explains the legal tests for all of the defences. Since the defence of "responsible communications in matters of public interest" does not exist in US law, it means that American journalists and bloggers have a higher risk of liability for defamation than their Canadian counterparts. So which country has stronger freedom of expression?
The United States, by far. Yes, there may exist one specific defense in libel cases in Canada, but weighed against the much weaker freedom of speech guarantee in the Canadian constitution, as exemplified by the numerous hate speech laws and "Human Rights" Tribunals, there's no contest. Even in the area of libel, the burden of proof is different in Canada and the U.S. In the U.S., the burden is on the plaintiff to show the statements are false. In Canada, while the burden is not purely on the defendant to show the statements are true, it is not as squarely on the plaintiff, either.
From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Tne First Amendment doesn't have the qualifer, therefore it is slightly stronger.
Note that this is in theory. It is not necessarily true in practice, for either nation.
Yup. And it is very true in practice as well. Canada has hate speech laws which would be blatantly unconstitutional in the United States. In fact, it is illegal in Canada to simply deny the holocaust. The problem is, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is quite unlike the Bill of Rights in that it doesn't simply restrict government power, but it grants absolute rights. So a hate speech law, while abridging speech, is also protecting the rights of minorities not to be offended, and that right carries equal weight to the right of free speech. In finding a "balance", courts have allowed many hate speech laws to stand.
Where's the evidence it is fake? All I see is a Gizmodo posting that "It ain't true." with nothing at all to back it up.
While certainly not "proof", I think that the article in Gizmodo is a lot more credible. It mentions the fact that it is not the policy of DHS to contact local authorities in other countries to have them inform one of their citizens that he is banned from entering the U.S. for life, which is what the original story reported that DHS agents did. If someone is banned from entering the U.S., the DHS would inform them themselves, usually when they show up at a point of entry or apply for a visa.
In some states, in others, the mere possession without an obvious reason to have them such as being a licensed and bonded locksmith, is a felony.
Which states?
Apple is not open source, will not become open source so I'd get used to it.
Windows is not open source either, but I can still write programs for it for free.
Let's get rid of the candy and soda machines while we're at it. Not only does it promote unhealthy lifestyles, but is a disgusting display of consumerism within a so-called institute of education.
Problem is, these candy and soda machines are often used to fund the schools' athletic programs. So get rid of them in the name of health, and pretty soon the school has no football or basketball team. Which is healthier? Playing sports and cooling off with a cold cola afterward, or drinking water while sitting at home on the couch playing video games? And by the way, healthier alternatives such as juice machines have a much lower profit margin.
Supposedly this would be equivalent to a magical Babelfish translator, since brain waves cannot be language specific. However, the existance of a meta-language behind all the many different human languages of the world has never been conclusively proven. Therefore I think something is fishy with the claim.
But if the claim is true, the possibilities are staggering. Not just for stroke patients, but for anyone. Imagine being able to travel to any country and speak in their native language. It may still be a few years away, but I think it's really cool. And would it be possible to transmit thoughts that aren't even expressible in any human language? This really does sound like an exciting beginning. I remember attending a lecture by Freeman Dyson many years ago where he proposed something similar.
Inconveniently, merely asserting a definition doesn't actually compel obedience on the part of the Universe.
As long as your definitions are consistent, though, you are not requiring the universe to obey anything. Take the speed of light for example. What does it mean to say that the speed of light is constant? It means that the distance covered by light in a specified unit of time will be constant. But if we define our unit of length to be the distance traveled by light in one second, then it will always be constant. My point is that two of the three quantities in the fine structure constant are arbitrary, and the third is determined by experiment.
The fine structure constant is given as being equal to "e^2/hc", so if the FSC is not a constant then one (or more) of the other values must also be a variable. Take your pick between:
If any of those constants turned out to in fact be variable, or even a "constant" which has varied over the lifetime of the universe, then the implications would be profound to say the least.
Actually, it is possible to work in fundamental units in which hbar = c = 1, so the latter two can be considered constant by definition.
British law is "loser pays", there's usually no need to sue for defence cost.
(IANAL. There may be some nuances here of which I am unaware).
Yes, but from what I understand, the British Chiropractic Association did not actually lose the case, but rather they withdrew their suit after losing a judgment on a point in the case regarding interpretation of Singh's statements. Do they still have to pay the legal costs he had accumulated up to that point, including his appeal costs on that particular ruling? I couldn't find in any documentation any information regarding who has to foot the $200K bill, so I am assuming Dr Singh had to pay.
Devil's Advocate here, but does that mean they shouldn't be sued for their infringement? I paid to see the film at the cinema. I feel ripped off twice over; I paid for something I could have received for free, and the film wasn't all that great anyway. I can't get a refund from the movie company or the cinema, but I can still be peeved at the folks who leaked it. IMHO, by the way, it's the leak who should be sued, not the consumers.
I'll play Devil's advocate as well. Are you sure "consumers" is the right word here?