There are exemptions for law enforcement in the DPA, for example if you ask for a copy of your police record they don't tell you they're currently parked outside your house or that they've been tapping your phone, or there would be much point in the police bothering to go to work in the morning. In the same way, RIPA material is probably exempted. In fact, I seem to recall that in the original draft it was going to be a 2-year term if anyone told you you'd had your email copied, even decades later - lathough that may have been one of the terms that was removed by the Lords.
Of course, I don't think there is a formal definition of "security through obscurity", and doubtless your interpretation is as good (or better) than mine, but to me passwords are NOT security through obscurity.
5 minutes down the road from where I'm sitting there is a bank branch. In that bank there is a safe, with thick concrete walls, layers of steel, timelocks and (ultimately) a combination. Oh, and a lot of cash. I know this. I know that if I knew the combination I could open the safe (ignoring the exterior alarms and timelocks for now). But to me that is not security through obscurity - everyone knows the exact level and type of "obscurity" involved, and because it is widely known, even the dumbest bank manager (and they don't picked for being dumb) knows that a really good combination is necessary.
Passwords are not "security through obscurity" to me because they are a fairly well known, quantifiable risk. I can use risk reduction methods like changing passwords and setting minimum length standards. Microsoft's QA is "security through obscurity" because I can't make an assessment for myself of the risks, nor can I do anything about it to make decisions for myself. I don't know if it really is obscure or whether some cracker is getting a MS programmer drunk and picking up a few tips...
Remember Archimedes. 1g of ice displaces 1g of water, which is slightly smaller than the icecube, so the icecube floats in your glass (about 1/3 of the volume is above the water, I seem to remember). When the ice melts it becomes 1g of water, which displaces...1g of water. No change at all. Fill a glass, add an icecube and top the glass up until it spills. Leave on a windowsill and watch.
However, much ice is not resting on lakes. Antarctica is mostly on rock, so if that melts and runs into the oceans, the water level does rise. Similarly for glaciers, Greenland etc. Another significant effect is straightforward thermal expansion. Heat up water and it expands, like any material (note this is entirely separate from the expansion on becoming steam). I seem to remember that this expansion could be a significant effect (even a 0.05% expansion is quite a large volume of water).
Moving to the slightly more speculative ideas I've heard:
One factor people are investigating is methane clathrates - organic matter that was covered with permafrost, and decomposed anaerobically to give methane trapped in an ice matrix. It is thought that the carbon in clathrates is more than ALL the other fossil fuels put together (51.9% of 21495 Gigatonnes). Methane is much more effective at Greenhousing than CO2. It may pose a runaway risk - a little man-made global warming melts some clathrates, which warms everything a bit more... and the process accelerates away. This is the reason some scientists believe even small reductions in emissions may reduce the probability of a runaway warming.
Remember, the media like to project the idea that there is a scientific "consensus" even though in many cases there are different camps with varying views. Take global warming, for example. One week the "yes" camp publish some results/they/ think are correct, and the newspapers and TV say "We're all doomed! Buy boats, sell beach huts.". The next week the "no" camp publish results saying it's all crap and the newspapers headline "Woohoo! Time for a bigger SUV." They never seem to bother to point out that it's not that the consensus has changed overnight, but that there was no firm consensus to begin with (although the majority probably do say "yes" in this case). Same goes for the MMR triple vaccine fuss that blew up in the UK and ditto mobile phone radiation there.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... I don't think so.
There are exemptions for law enforcement in the DPA, for example if you ask for a copy of your police record they don't tell you they're currently parked outside your house or that they've been tapping your phone, or there would be much point in the police bothering to go to work in the morning. In the same way, RIPA material is probably exempted. In fact, I seem to recall that in the original draft it was going to be a 2-year term if anyone told you you'd had your email copied, even decades later - lathough that may have been one of the terms that was removed by the Lords.
PS - IANAL
Of course, I don't think there is a formal definition of "security through obscurity", and doubtless your interpretation is as good (or better) than mine, but to me passwords are NOT security through obscurity.
5 minutes down the road from where I'm sitting there is a bank branch. In that bank there is a safe, with thick concrete walls, layers of steel, timelocks and (ultimately) a combination. Oh, and a lot of cash. I know this. I know that if I knew the combination I could open the safe (ignoring the exterior alarms and timelocks for now). But to me that is not security through obscurity - everyone knows the exact level and type of "obscurity" involved, and because it is widely known, even the dumbest bank manager (and they don't picked for being dumb) knows that a really good combination is necessary.
Passwords are not "security through obscurity" to me because they are a fairly well known, quantifiable risk. I can use risk reduction methods like changing passwords and setting minimum length standards. Microsoft's QA is "security through obscurity" because I can't make an assessment for myself of the risks, nor can I do anything about it to make decisions for myself. I don't know if it really is obscure or whether some cracker is getting a MS programmer drunk and picking up a few tips...
No... I made this mistake at first.
Remember Archimedes. 1g of ice displaces 1g of water, which is slightly smaller than the icecube, so the icecube floats in your glass (about 1/3 of the volume is above the water, I seem to remember). When the ice melts it becomes 1g of water, which displaces...1g of water. No change at all. Fill a glass, add an icecube and top the glass up until it spills. Leave on a windowsill and watch.
However, much ice is not resting on lakes. Antarctica is mostly on rock, so if that melts and runs into the oceans, the water level does rise. Similarly for glaciers, Greenland etc. Another significant effect is straightforward thermal expansion. Heat up water and it expands, like any material (note this is entirely separate from the expansion on becoming steam). I seem to remember that this expansion could be a significant effect (even a 0.05% expansion is quite a large volume of water).
Moving to the slightly more speculative ideas I've heard:
One factor people are investigating is methane clathrates - organic matter that was covered with permafrost, and decomposed anaerobically to give methane trapped in an ice matrix. It is thought that the carbon in clathrates is more than ALL the other fossil fuels put together (51.9% of 21495 Gigatonnes). Methane is much more effective at Greenhousing than CO2. It may pose a runaway risk - a little man-made global warming melts some clathrates, which warms everything a bit more... and the process accelerates away. This is the reason some scientists believe even small reductions in emissions may reduce the probability of a runaway warming.
Cheers.
Only sometimes -
/they/ think are correct, and the newspapers and TV say "We're all doomed! Buy boats, sell beach huts.". The next week the "no" camp publish results saying it's all crap and the newspapers headline "Woohoo! Time for a bigger SUV." They never seem to bother to point out that it's not that the consensus has changed overnight, but that there was no firm consensus to begin with (although the majority probably do say "yes" in this case). Same goes for the MMR triple vaccine fuss that blew up in the UK and ditto mobile phone radiation there.
Remember, the media like to project the idea that there is a scientific "consensus" even though in many cases there are different camps with varying views. Take global warming, for example. One week the "yes" camp publish some results