Indeed, but if someone is abusing the anonmity of some particular web service in order to DoS your site without reprocussions, then your blog is as useless as you yelling from within a prison.
Such is the nature of speaking out. When you speak out and attempt to garner support or make people listen, you immediately invite attention to you and who you are. The same thing that allows us to find that a "reporter" is a paid government schill is the same thing that will lead to your downfall if you start speaking out with a sorrid past.
When you make noise, people will pay attention, and they're going to want to know who's making the noise and why. It doesnt' matter that the attention came from the fact that people didn't like what he said, he still broke the rules, and now he's paying for it because he drew attention to himself.
Hmm, I've heard that the right to be heard is no guaranteed in the context of using someone elses platform to do your talking, but when using your own platform, the right of anyone who choses to listen (and therefore your right to be heard) should be unobstructed should it not? Else what good is the right to free speech? Can you not yell about the evils of the government just as loudly from a jail cell as from a soap box?
But if those who whish to listen to you can not, surely it makes the freedom os speech useless. After all, you can blather all day long about the evils of government from your solitary confinement cell. The government isn't restricting your free speech, just who can hear it.
First the encryption has to be broken. If public key encryption is used... well ask anyone here about the joys of public key.
Second your thief would then have to obtain a merchant ID somehow, and runa transaction request to the credit card company with the valid merchant ID, relvant data and your CC information
Then the authorization code comes back from the CC and then a compelted transaction request goes back to the CC containing the auth code and the ammount to be billed.
And you'll note nowhere in this transaction scheme is it possible to grab the money because the CC company deducts the money and gives it to the merchant, which means your theif needs to register his adress as a merchant.
The only possible worry is extracting your CC data for use in an online store, but your CC doesn't store your security code on the back of your card so that's a moot point, hinderd even further by use of public key encryption.
In all, your theif is no more likely to succeede under the new system than under the old.
When was the last time you heard about stolen cards being run with a fake merchant? Merchant IDs are in use as it is. And while encryption systems can be broken and banks lose your money THAT HAPENS NOW. If encryption is used, there's no reason to assume that Identity theft which already occurs will occur any more frequently.
Because your current credit card stores very little information on it and knows nothing about how much you have. That's all verified centrally at the CC company. So whenever you run your card, the place you run it just sends the card info and the price back to the CC company along with merchant IDs and various other bits of info.
Then they invented this nifty little thing called speed dial. One touch and you made a call. Even better, many phones had specific buttons with cute little icons to tell you which to press.
Don't get me wrong, 911 is great, but you should aways have a backup plan, and that should mean having your local emergency numbers programed into your phone.
You can't get the edu version from the store because it's actually sold under a different license and the stores don't carry those. I'm not sure why they don't carry them when so many people want them, but I assume it's because the boxes are identical, it's just the internal license and SKU.
that on the one hand he says that the linux community needs to grow up and denounce and eject extremists and fanatics, and on the other hand, criticises them for doing just that with OGara
He's right (if he doesn't already know from first hand knowledge), I said this a few months back myself on another forum, using the AE to do video is where things need to go. It's already part way there. You put your AE behind your stereo system to run music to. What else is usually with your stereo system? Your TV.
As for the bandwidth issue, according to Apple full hi def is 7-8 Mbps. Even 802.11b is 11 Mbps, and with the AE already using 802.11g, it shouldn't be a problem at all.
If anything, my money is definately on an AE for video. Perhaps even combined with that remote the poster one or two threads up was talking about (that would certainly mix in the new touch screen patent)
[quote]Depriving people of privacy is a crime? Wow. Didn't know that one. [/quote]
yes it is. Try putting cameras up in a bathroom or changing room or pointing into someone's windows. try tapping someone's phone line.
[quote]My SSN is all over the fucking place. In the hands of my mortgage company, my bank, hell, the university where I attended school used it as our Student IDs, so they were all over professor's roll sheets which I/saw/ Profs toss in the trash. For a secret number, it's not so secret. [/quote]
You realize that:
1) That number was given voluntarily by you every time
2) That had you requested it, by law they must provide you with an ID number to use in lieu of an SSN
You deprive them of their privacy. Now their SSN is in the hands of someone whom they did not authorize to have such information. It doesn't matter if you do anything with it, but that you have it in the first place.
Otherwise, please give me your full name and ssn. I promise I wont do anything with it.
By not exploiting it. The problem these kids are facing is they actually took something. And SSN noumbers at that. Had they merely shown the hole existed and confirmed it by logging in and out, that would have probably had them in less trouble.
No, I know exactly what I'm talking about. You said:
In theory, any citizen can watch the entire process.
Which I said was not true for the reasons I outline previously. Then you said it was true, you can watch and verify everything except the actual vote, thus completely negating your statement.
If there is any point where you can not be a whitness to everything that goes on, then you can not be sure that the process and vote is 100% accurate and verified.
Consider:
Voter makes his secret vote for Gore and places said secret vote for gore into sealed ballot box.
The only thing you as a citizen can see is the person put his vote (which you don't know) into the sealed ballot box. You are not allowed inside the box.
Now suppose prior to said election, the sealed ballot box was actually riged to have two compartments, one filled with previously marked votes for Bush. What the ballot box actually does is rest above a trash bin wich is where all the real votes go. Remember,you can't see any of this because you aren't allowed in the ballot box. Now when the box is unsealed, the votes are the rigged votes.
Prove that our voter did indeed vote for Gore.
And that's just a complex version for paper ballots. How about ballots that are machine read?
Rig the machine to double mark every 8th vote for bush thus negating the ballot.
Prove the voters didn't double mark their ballot.
Like I said, just because you can SEE someone count a paper that says Gore does not mean that a vote for Gore was cast.
Likewise, just because you can see someone count a vote for Bush, doesn't mean a vote for Bush was csat.
Look no further than the 2000 election to see this in action.
Other than the initial marking of the ballot (the "secret" part), the entire process can be viewed by any citizen.
ANd therefore the votes are unverifiable. Just because you see someone count a piece of paper that says Gore on it doesn't mean that a vote for gore was really cast, just that you saw him count it.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, but if someone is abusing the anonmity of some particular web service in order to DoS your site without reprocussions, then your blog is as useless as you yelling from within a prison.
Such is the nature of speaking out. When you speak out and attempt to garner support or make people listen, you immediately invite attention to you and who you are. The same thing that allows us to find that a "reporter" is a paid government schill is the same thing that will lead to your downfall if you start speaking out with a sorrid past.
When you make noise, people will pay attention, and they're going to want to know who's making the noise and why. It doesnt' matter that the attention came from the fact that people didn't like what he said, he still broke the rules, and now he's paying for it because he drew attention to himself.
And being thrown in jail doesn't prevent you from speaking at all, it just makes your speech harder to find.
The parent is right, we need to try and find a solution which serves to further freedoms without denying those same freedoms from others.
Hmm, I've heard that the right to be heard is no guaranteed in the context of using someone elses platform to do your talking, but when using your own platform, the right of anyone who choses to listen (and therefore your right to be heard) should be unobstructed should it not? Else what good is the right to free speech? Can you not yell about the evils of the government just as loudly from a jail cell as from a soap box?
But if those who whish to listen to you can not, surely it makes the freedom os speech useless. After all, you can blather all day long about the evils of government from your solitary confinement cell. The government isn't restricting your free speech, just who can hear it.
No, no poof.
... well ask anyone here about the joys of public key.
First the encryption has to be broken. If public key encryption is used
Second your thief would then have to obtain a merchant ID somehow, and runa transaction request to the credit card company with the valid merchant ID, relvant data and your CC information
Then the authorization code comes back from the CC and then a compelted transaction request goes back to the CC containing the auth code and the ammount to be billed.
And you'll note nowhere in this transaction scheme is it possible to grab the money because the CC company deducts the money and gives it to the merchant, which means your theif needs to register his adress as a merchant.
The only possible worry is extracting your CC data for use in an online store, but your CC doesn't store your security code on the back of your card so that's a moot point, hinderd even further by use of public key encryption.
In all, your theif is no more likely to succeede under the new system than under the old.
When was the last time you heard about stolen cards being run with a fake merchant? Merchant IDs are in use as it is. And while encryption systems can be broken and banks lose your money THAT HAPENS NOW. If encryption is used, there's no reason to assume that Identity theft which already occurs will occur any more frequently.
Because your current credit card stores very little information on it and knows nothing about how much you have. That's all verified centrally at the CC company. So whenever you run your card, the place you run it just sends the card info and the price back to the CC company along with merchant IDs and various other bits of info.
Then they invented this nifty little thing called speed dial. One touch and you made a call. Even better, many phones had specific buttons with cute little icons to tell you which to press.
Don't get me wrong, 911 is great, but you should aways have a backup plan, and that should mean having your local emergency numbers programed into your phone.
You don't. The aggregators are by definition, the public.
You can't get the edu version from the store because it's actually sold under a different license and the stores don't carry those. I'm not sure why they don't carry them when so many people want them, but I assume it's because the boxes are identical, it's just the internal license and SKU.
that on the one hand he says that the linux community needs to grow up and denounce and eject extremists and fanatics, and on the other hand, criticises them for doing just that with OGara
He's right (if he doesn't already know from first hand knowledge), I said this a few months back myself on another forum, using the AE to do video is where things need to go. It's already part way there. You put your AE behind your stereo system to run music to. What else is usually with your stereo system? Your TV.
As for the bandwidth issue, according to Apple full hi def is 7-8 Mbps. Even 802.11b is 11 Mbps, and with the AE already using 802.11g, it shouldn't be a problem at all.
If anything, my money is definately on an AE for video. Perhaps even combined with that remote the poster one or two threads up was talking about (that would certainly mix in the new touch screen patent)
So because the school is also responsible the kids are innocent? No sorry the law doesn't work that way.
[quote]Depriving people of privacy is a crime? Wow. Didn't know that one.
/saw/ Profs toss in the trash. For a secret number, it's not so secret.
[/quote]
yes it is. Try putting cameras up in a bathroom or changing room or pointing into someone's windows. try tapping someone's phone line.
[quote]My SSN is all over the fucking place. In the hands of my mortgage company, my bank, hell, the university where I attended school used it as our Student IDs, so they were all over professor's roll sheets which I
[/quote]
You realize that:
1) That number was given voluntarily by you every time
2) That had you requested it, by law they must provide you with an ID number to use in lieu of an SSN
You deprive them of their privacy. Now their SSN is in the hands of someone whom they did not authorize to have such information. It doesn't matter if you do anything with it, but that you have it in the first place.
Otherwise, please give me your full name and ssn. I promise I wont do anything with it.
By not exploiting it. The problem these kids are facing is they actually took something. And SSN noumbers at that. Had they merely shown the hole existed and confirmed it by logging in and out, that would have probably had them in less trouble.
There's a difference between publishing an exploit and breaking into a system you don't have rights to.
And I know it's fashionable to hate on business, but there are a lot of security flaws that get patched without an exploit being published or used.
Not at all, but let's not preted our system was ever perfect and that new technology is evil because it has flaws
Fair , honest and open voting has never occured in this country except between two people deciding on what they want for dinner.
You want to let poll workers have the option to void a vote but you're concerned about a lack of unverifiable paper?
Except if you read the links I gave elsewhere in this thread, you'll find that exit polls have been quite wrong before.
No, I know exactly what I'm talking about. You said:
In theory, any citizen can watch the entire process.
Which I said was not true for the reasons I outline previously. Then you said it was true, you can watch and verify everything except the actual vote, thus completely negating your statement.
If there is any point where you can not be a whitness to everything that goes on, then you can not be sure that the process and vote is 100% accurate and verified.
Consider:
Voter makes his secret vote for Gore and places said secret vote for gore into sealed ballot box.
The only thing you as a citizen can see is the person put his vote (which you don't know) into the sealed ballot box. You are not allowed inside the box.
Now suppose prior to said election, the sealed ballot box was actually riged to have two compartments, one filled with previously marked votes for Bush. What the ballot box actually does is rest above a trash bin wich is where all the real votes go. Remember,you can't see any of this because you aren't allowed in the ballot box. Now when the box is unsealed, the votes are the rigged votes.
Prove that our voter did indeed vote for Gore.
And that's just a complex version for paper ballots. How about ballots that are machine read?
Rig the machine to double mark every 8th vote for bush thus negating the ballot.
Prove the voters didn't double mark their ballot.
Like I said, just because you can SEE someone count a paper that says Gore does not mean that a vote for Gore was cast.
Likewise, just because you can see someone count a vote for Bush, doesn't mean a vote for Bush was csat.
Look no further than the 2000 election to see this in action.
Other than the initial marking of the ballot (the "secret" part), the entire process can be viewed by any citizen.
ANd therefore the votes are unverifiable. Just because you see someone count a piece of paper that says Gore on it doesn't mean that a vote for gore was really cast, just that you saw him count it.
The point is, exit polling is still extrapolations, which means it can't by it's very nature be 100% accurate.