With the DEA in place, they can simply require the ISP to do their donkey work.
Require how? There must be some recourse that the copyright holder can take against an ISP that is failing to respond to complaints.
By 'require', I was referring to the fact that the DEA allows rightsholders to send their complaints to an ISP, and the ISP is required by law to pass those complaints on and (I think - I've not read it in a while) take further action where they relate to a subscriber of that ISP. AAISP's view is apparently that they can alter the status of their customers away from 'subscriber' to circumvent this requirement.
Eventually such a recourse could end up in front of a judge, and that's when AAISP might find themselves in hot water.
They seem to believe otherwise. It is quite possible (I'm not going to say 'likely', these things are notoriously difficult to predict) that the judge will view the legal definitions as strictly as they are written, and AAISP can be shown to be in the right legally. At which point, court orders again become a requirement in order for the holders to contact the potential infringers directly.
None of this is directly aimed at taking the legal system out of the loop when it comes to copyright infringment. That is still something that can be put before a judge in a court of law. AAISP are, it seems, simply applying a large 'RESET' button that puts things back to how they were before this section of the DEA was put into law.
The LibDems are the only one of the three major parties that stood up to this law (voting against it and calling for its repeal).
They also seem the strongest generally when it comes to following common-sense approach to science; evidence-based policy is one phrase I've heard being banded around as well, which after the various allegations of ministers ignoring their own scientific advisors in the past few months is a welcome relief.
However, I'm more than just a geek. When it comes to my vote in a week's time, I also have to consider the pros and cons of each party to all the other aspects of my life: my wife, baby son, job, house, local environment, health, personal and moral beliefs, just to name a few. Being geek-friendly is a positive trait, but there are also areas important to me in which the LibDems are weaker.
There is only one interpretation of the l;aw that counts, and that's the judge's one. This is espacially true in UK's(and US's) Common Law system.
Either you or I have misunderstood this particular section of the Digital Economy Act, and the balance of probabilities suggests that it's you. At issue is not the legality of sharing the files - the DEA doesn't deal with that, that's part of pre-existing Copyright acts - but the short-cut that now exists that enables rightsholders to harrass suspected filesharers through their ISP without the need for a court order.
Before the DEA, firms were required to issue a court order to the ISP - a timeconsuming and potentially expensive process if done in bulk - in order to collect enough information to contact the individuals themselves. With the DEA in place, they can simply require the ISP to do their donkey work.
So, they found loopholes, or so they think. They may be correct, but you will not know until thoose loopholes are tested in a courthouse.
The loopholes definitely exist, I've seen the various discussions that led to A&A making the implementations discussed and it is quite clear from the wording of the DEA itself (which, combined with the Telecommunitions Act IIRC, is very specific in its definitions of the parties concerned). The legal route, where the case can be presented in front of a judge, does still exist: it just requires more effort on the part of the rightsholders, and specifically the amount of effort that they should have had to take in the first place before the DEA came into effect.
No the Enigma machine was not a cryptographically sound device. It's major technical flaw was that it would never substitute a letter for itself thanks to the way its circuitry worked.
And in 30 years time, we may well be saying that PGP was 'not a cryptographically sound algorithm', 'It's major technical flaw was that it relied on not being able to factorise a 30-digit number'.
I think the GP just meant 'very strong', not 'very sound' - which for the time, it was. Its major flaw was actually its users.
I believe it was the first machine to have symmetrical encoding and decoding. Because it had a this property (as a letter was coded through the rotors, there was a rotor that reflected the encoding back through the rotor stages again), an operator could code and decode messages without reconfiguring the device.
Due to the fact above, the Enigma could never encode a letter onto itself. This greatly decreased the permutations allowed and made the device less effective.
I may be misunderstanding your cause and effect combination slightly here, but the symmertical encoding/decoding did not cause Engima to never encode a letter onto itself; that was specifically because of the reflector cog at the end of the wheels and the design of the electrical circuit within the machine.
Operators would encode the rotor setup in the message.
Twice (in case there were problems in receiving the messages); this led to the British and Polish (who never get enough public credit, IMO) knowing, for example, that if the message started 'ABCDEF', then A and D were the same original letter, and likewise with B/E and C/F. Herivel should also be credited with his work in predicting the rotor setups based on relatively simply psychology
Also, the Germans would include many standard phrases like praise for the Fuhrer.
Of more use was a certain weather station that broadcast messages at a set time every day and started each with 'WETTER'.
There are many simulators of the Enigma machine (see the Wikipedia article). Very cool to play with to really understand the operation of the device.
I wonder how long it would take them to arrest me, assuming I wasn't just shot in the back during my morning commute.
If the police arrested you simply for sending a lot of emails, the UK Government would have a lot more to worry about than whether they can get ISPs to retain sections of SMTP logs or not.
Someone already noted that GB can force you to divulge encryption keys. However, TLS generates random keys each connection, and keeps no record of them. Does that mean that TLS is illegal in GB?
No; one valid defence in the eyes of the [British, at least] law is not to know, or to have, the decryption keys for any encrypted content you may have.
I know it must have taken a great deal of self-control
It did; my first draft was slightly more scathing, but then I conceded that your original post may just have been a hastily-written reaction to a subject that you weren't completely au fait with. As others have already pointed out, the benefit is given irrespective of means.
but I stand by my assertion
The post I followed-up started with you stepping backwards. Was your assertion behind you when you made it?
I know such a thing would require effort, but if you were to read TFA you may notice that the loss covers _child_ benefit, not _unemployment_ benefit.
Take a step forward. And then note that when the information was first lost, they simply sent a second copy...
Not towards the end, it's not. Look at the last few miles, after the motorways have ended. The route turns off the Great West Road, through the suburbs of Chiswick and Shepherd's Bush, then back on to Cromwell Road [a continuation of the GWR].
I counted at least 12 turns, roundabouts and mini-roundabouts. This is simpler than one roundabout and a 2- or 3-lane road all the way?
These route finders are great, I admit, for the longer distances, but local knowledge (or, just looking at a map) can beat them most times.
Adrian (Imperial College '93-'97, but that's also not the point)
It's not a 'past' phenomenon, unfortuately. Walking through Cardiff town centre a number of times - as recently as two days ago - the large animated screen in the main pedestrian area has, quite often, the top-left corner of a Windows error box appearing within it.
Not the sort of thing you'd want, either advertising various companies in public areas, or showing off photos of your nearest and dearest on the living room wall...
As has already been pointed out, GMail does. For those without access... firstly, my sympathies; secondly, MyRealBox, run by Novell as a testbed for their mail systems, at least used to and probably still does offer POP3 access.
Our school district made the mistake of purchasing around $18 worth of Lexmark printers (5700s) when we ordered Dells back in 1999
Well, at least you didn't waste too much money on them.
I've used precisely one Lexmark printer in my life, several years ago. Not only was it slow, it also slowed the PC down horrendously (it was highly Windows-dependant). However the quality of them may have improved since, the mud still sticks.
Back on topic... a company I knew in the past had a CEO who didn't seem to care about the grammer or spelling of her emails; she and another director ended up having arguments based around the fact that she should either (a) proofread, or (b) stop sending out emails that could damage the company image.
As far as I could see, she knew how her emails could look to people. She just didn't really care; after all, she wasn't the one with the problem.
Not really, no - the Cabinet is just a small subset of the party as a whole. It's possible (although unlikely, I admit) that no Cabinet member - that, is, member of the Government - is even aware of the site in question.
That said, I'd agree with your original stance [of having the site taken down], if only because our constant negative campaigning is possibly the major factor putting people off voting in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
With the DEA in place, they can simply require the ISP to do their donkey work.
Require how? There must be some recourse that the copyright holder can take against an ISP that is failing to respond to complaints.
By 'require', I was referring to the fact that the DEA allows rightsholders to send their complaints to an ISP, and the ISP is required by law to pass those complaints on and (I think - I've not read it in a while) take further action where they relate to a subscriber of that ISP. AAISP's view is apparently that they can alter the status of their customers away from 'subscriber' to circumvent this requirement.
Eventually such a recourse could end up in front of a judge, and that's when AAISP might find themselves in hot water.
They seem to believe otherwise. It is quite possible (I'm not going to say 'likely', these things are notoriously difficult to predict) that the judge will view the legal definitions as strictly as they are written, and AAISP can be shown to be in the right legally. At which point, court orders again become a requirement in order for the holders to contact the potential infringers directly.
None of this is directly aimed at taking the legal system out of the loop when it comes to copyright infringment. That is still something that can be put before a judge in a court of law. AAISP are, it seems, simply applying a large 'RESET' button that puts things back to how they were before this section of the DEA was put into law.
The LibDems are the only one of the three major parties that stood up to this law (voting against it and calling for its repeal).
They also seem the strongest generally when it comes to following common-sense approach to science; evidence-based policy is one phrase I've heard being banded around as well, which after the various allegations of ministers ignoring their own scientific advisors in the past few months is a welcome relief.
However, I'm more than just a geek. When it comes to my vote in a week's time, I also have to consider the pros and cons of each party to all the other aspects of my life: my wife, baby son, job, house, local environment, health, personal and moral beliefs, just to name a few. Being geek-friendly is a positive trait, but there are also areas important to me in which the LibDems are weaker.
There is only one interpretation of the l;aw that counts, and that's the judge's one. This is espacially true in UK's(and US's) Common Law system.
Either you or I have misunderstood this particular section of the Digital Economy Act, and the balance of probabilities suggests that it's you. At issue is not the legality of sharing the files - the DEA doesn't deal with that, that's part of pre-existing Copyright acts - but the short-cut that now exists that enables rightsholders to harrass suspected filesharers through their ISP without the need for a court order.
Before the DEA, firms were required to issue a court order to the ISP - a timeconsuming and potentially expensive process if done in bulk - in order to collect enough information to contact the individuals themselves. With the DEA in place, they can simply require the ISP to do their donkey work.
So, they found loopholes, or so they think. They may be correct, but you will not know until thoose loopholes are tested in a courthouse.
The loopholes definitely exist, I've seen the various discussions that led to A&A making the implementations discussed and it is quite clear from the wording of the DEA itself (which, combined with the Telecommunitions Act IIRC, is very specific in its definitions of the parties concerned). The legal route, where the case can be presented in front of a judge, does still exist: it just requires more effort on the part of the rightsholders, and specifically the amount of effort that they should have had to take in the first place before the DEA came into effect.
Uh you know that JC owns a FORD GT40, right?
Used to. He has since referred to it as the most unreliable car ever made.
No the Enigma machine was not a cryptographically sound device. It's major technical flaw was that it would never substitute a letter for itself thanks to the way its circuitry worked.
And in 30 years time, we may well be saying that PGP was 'not a cryptographically sound algorithm', 'It's major technical flaw was that it relied on not being able to factorise a 30-digit number'.
I think the GP just meant 'very strong', not 'very sound' - which for the time, it was. Its major flaw was actually its users.
I believe it was the first machine to have symmetrical encoding and decoding. Because it had a this property (as a letter was coded through the rotors, there was a rotor that reflected the encoding back through the rotor stages again), an operator could code and decode messages without reconfiguring the device. Due to the fact above, the Enigma could never encode a letter onto itself. This greatly decreased the permutations allowed and made the device less effective.
I may be misunderstanding your cause and effect combination slightly here, but the symmertical encoding/decoding did not cause Engima to never encode a letter onto itself; that was specifically because of the reflector cog at the end of the wheels and the design of the electrical circuit within the machine.
Operators would encode the rotor setup in the message.
Twice (in case there were problems in receiving the messages); this led to the British and Polish (who never get enough public credit, IMO) knowing, for example, that if the message started 'ABCDEF', then A and D were the same original letter, and likewise with B/E and C/F. Herivel should also be credited with his work in predicting the rotor setups based on relatively simply psychology
Also, the Germans would include many standard phrases like praise for the Fuhrer.
Of more use was a certain weather station that broadcast messages at a set time every day and started each with 'WETTER'.
There are many simulators of the Enigma machine (see the Wikipedia article). Very cool to play with to really understand the operation of the device.
Writing one helps you appreciate it even more. Even the rotation of each cog isn't as simple as it seems.
I wonder how long it would take them to arrest me, assuming I wasn't just shot in the back during my morning commute.
If the police arrested you simply for sending a lot of emails, the UK Government would have a lot more to worry about than whether they can get ISPs to retain sections of SMTP logs or not.
Someone already noted that GB can force you to divulge encryption keys. However, TLS generates random keys each connection, and keeps no record of them. Does that mean that TLS is illegal in GB?
No; one valid defence in the eyes of the [British, at least] law is not to know, or to have, the decryption keys for any encrypted content you may have.
I know such a thing would require effort, but if you were to read TFA you may notice that the loss covers _child_ benefit, not _unemployment_ benefit. Take a step forward. And then note that when the information was first lost, they simply sent a second copy ...
I counted at least 12 turns, roundabouts and mini-roundabouts. This is simpler than one roundabout and a 2- or 3-lane road all the way? These route finders are great, I admit, for the longer distances, but local knowledge (or, just looking at a map) can beat them most times.
Adrian (Imperial College '93-'97, but that's also not the point)
It's not a 'past' phenomenon, unfortuately. Walking through Cardiff town centre a number of times - as recently as two days ago - the large animated screen in the main pedestrian area has, quite often, the top-left corner of a Windows error box appearing within it.
...
Not the sort of thing you'd want, either advertising various companies in public areas, or showing off photos of your nearest and dearest on the living room wall
As has already been pointed out, GMail does. For those without access ... firstly, my sympathies; secondly, MyRealBox, run by Novell as a testbed for their mail systems, at least used to and probably still does offer POP3 access.
This may explain why Wales disappeared from a recent EU Statistics publication, then, and Belgium remained.
...</whisper>
<whisper>Don't trust the Belgians, they're up to something
I've used precisely one Lexmark printer in my life, several years ago. Not only was it slow, it also slowed the PC down horrendously (it was highly Windows-dependant). However the quality of them may have improved since, the mud still sticks.
A quick google says 'Siemens', to save anyone else the effort.
Nope - we Brits spell it 'er' as well.
... a company I knew in the past had a CEO who didn't seem to care about the grammer or spelling of her emails; she and another director ended up having arguments based around the fact that she should either (a) proofread, or (b) stop sending out emails that could damage the company image.
Back on topic
As far as I could see, she knew how her emails could look to people. She just didn't really care; after all, she wasn't the one with the problem.
Not really, no - the Cabinet is just a small subset of the party as a whole. It's possible (although unlikely, I admit) that no Cabinet member - that, is, member of the Government - is even aware of the site in question.
That said, I'd agree with your original stance [of having the site taken down], if only because our constant negative campaigning is possibly the major factor putting people off voting in the first place.
(Mine, in front of me, lists 6 payments at about 9.65, and a further 6 of about 10.50)
Adrian