...and that is *A* political idea. It is not an idea shared by all people.
That political scientists are AWARE of such ideas, understand them, analyze them and can argue them from whatever point of view in no way implies they _agree_ with such ideas.
To take the beloved doctors analogy, you might as well say that because a cardiologist has studied the heart in great detail that they are thus rendered wholly incapable of conceiving of an organism surviving without one. No, they just know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to the heart.
The existence of all those kinds of encryption renders utterly useless the very, very few cases where this would be remotely feasible. That was my point. Apologies if it was a tad round-about. It wasn't a literal "OMFG!!! Teh cellfone!!" -- it was just "this is, in every possible form, a patently ridiculous idea and here's one example of why."
Politics!=Law!=Government ("Big G" that is)...nor does it necessarily imply any particular form of either of the latter.
All that word truly means is the space, behavior and mechanisms people create (or actively DO NOT create) to resolve their differences. On a desert island, two people hurling coconuts at each other would be every bit as "political" as the Prime Minister's Questions. THAT is what "Political Science" is about, not reinforcing one form of government ("little g"), ideology or even the IDEA of -a- government ("Big G") as an entity. See the coconuts again: that's "governing" -- that is, one can govern or engage in government (v.) without becoming The Government (n.). Remember, Political Science is the intersection of Sociology and Economics, which in their purest forms are little more than observation.
Now, in observing this, I note that I have said basically nothing about the politics of this other than it happens to be politicians coming up with the idea, which is a point of fact over which nothing in my mind has any bearing or control. The British government exists and it is doing something absurd. Nothing in that statement illuminates whether I think that government should exist in some form, should exist at all or anything in between. It is just an observation of current FACT. That someone would take that and dribble on with some screed about how I've been "indoctrinated" reall illuminates far more about that person's indoctrination than anything I may or may not have been subject to.
I hope this advances your understanding of what "Political Science" is, if just a smidge.
As helpful as all these technical criticisms of the "cellphone" example are in understanding the Security-101 minutiae of SIGINT, they totally miss the point -- oddly enough by POINTING OUT THE POINT!
The primary overriding point to be made is that regardless of utility in any particular example, the issue is in loosely defining terms that could have absolutely ridiculous results. So, they mandate that they must keep all of these keys with a perpetually appended list of obviously absurd exceptions (read:cellphones, https, ssh/sftp, s/key and all manner of one-time-pads), thus rendering the whole idea rubbish because the necessary exceptions are likely the most needed sources of information. They then criminalize anyone who doesn't comply with that moving target.
Just an example of astoundingly ignorant politicians who don't realize they're effectively criminalizing the use of cellular phones, the constantly changing keys of which would amass petabytes of data within a year, in just the UK--and that's just the keys, not the data they encrypted...and that's just the cellphones.
SUN's old saw "The Network is the Computer" is already supplanting the notion of a "desktop." The desktop is scarcely the "hub" even now. It's just a node.
It also makes sense to use language that you have full command of.
Please refrain from using language of which you do not possess full command.
From my favorite Designing Women exchange:
Charlene: "Hi. Where y'all from?" Woman: "We are from a place where they don't end a sentence with a preposition." Charlene: "Oh, I'm terribly sorry. Where y'all from, bitch?"
You overestimate the uniformity in thought amongst academics and underestimate their breadth of experience. I can assure you, the academics I've had the pleasure of meeting in rural Africa are well aware of the things you so dismissively think they haven't experienced merely by fact of being academics--and their views are not so divergent from those of the supposedly fat and rich academics in cushy jobs in the U.S.
I would direct you to any APSA event at which you may find illumination on this topic.
I just did a quick check of one of the cheaper hosting companies out there (serverbeach.com). To get unmetered 10Mb/s, it costs about $275/month. That represents a potential sustained load of about 25GB/day, or about 6 DVDs worth of video, say, 12 hours. That's a crapload of video, but still, it does give some indication of what the true cost of all that bandwidth is, considering even that "unmetered" plan certainly assumes that only some percentage of users will truly use up all that bandwidth on a sustained basis--but they'll let you do it at that price should you choose to. It seems to me that there is a very reasonable case to be made for this "tiering" (though, I'm not in favor of it as it is currently defined) -- such that as many users as possible can get the speeds they expect for the services they want without having to pay the industrial-strength rates that many of us are well used to shelling out for certain levels of service.
[[begin childishly inane thread about "unlimited" home accounts now]]
My point was that "The Founding Fathers(tm)" were anything but part of the masses and for the most part were concerned about preserving the rights of the aristocracy, not the commoner, ergo, why they decided you had to be a free, white, land-owning male to vote. The loss of liberty old Ben was speaking of could basically be summed up as "universal suffrage."
The ENTIRE article was ripped from the university site. Not a single added value--in fact, it was negative value as I had to go to the original for the animations. In these cases, can we please bypass to blogospammers and just get the real deal? Pretty please?
That entire screed was about a controversial system in one country, but not even that--just one CITY. So, instead of saying "that's reality in parts of Western Europe" just be honest and say "they're doing something sketchy in central London" -- and before getting so persnickety about how many eons the U.S. is supposedly ahead on these things, Washington, DC has all of these things right now, so rather than being ahead of the game, it's close to deuce, babe.
The masses almost always value security over freedom until they have so little of either a revolution is born.
Now you're starting to sound like the founding fathers. Untenable aristocracy always has this fear, always afraid of that revolution, always chipping away at the freedom of the unwashed masses in order to abate it, yet always painfully aware that it will ultimately be their undoing.
State and local government are collectively far larger than the federal government, but when people talk about "big government" all they think about is what comes out of Washington, DC. This is really quite sad because almost all of the federal influence on your life necessarily must be filtered through state and local government--Washington just sends the checks. But, it hurts more to admit that you're too lazy to walk down to City Hall and throw a fit than it does to throw your hands into the air and complain about distant Washington, conveniently ignoring the fact that your voice in Washington is probably walking distance from your Barca-lounger.
even though Saddam was a genocidal maniac and just as ruthless as anyone else in the region.
Now THAT, I can agree with. So, when do we invade Israel and Saudi Arabia?
You CAN wrap your mind around time NOT having a beginning?
Neither a finite nor infinite universe are really within the ability of human comprehension as evidenced by the fact that every scientific, philosophical and religious argument out there basically boils down to "everything that exists was created by, erm, uhm, uh, this other thing...and this other thing... and oh, damn it, it just is, okay?"
Slashdot Mirror
"Dude, like, that's a 'town.'" //loved that episode.
...and that is *A* political idea. It is not an idea shared by all people.
That political scientists are AWARE of such ideas, understand them, analyze them and can argue them from whatever point of view in no way implies they _agree_ with such ideas.
To take the beloved doctors analogy, you might as well say that because a cardiologist has studied the heart in great detail that they are thus rendered wholly incapable of conceiving of an organism surviving without one. No, they just know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to the heart.
The existence of all those kinds of encryption renders utterly useless the very, very few cases where this would be remotely feasible. That was my point. Apologies if it was a tad round-about. It wasn't a literal "OMFG!!! Teh cellfone!!" -- it was just "this is, in every possible form, a patently ridiculous idea and here's one example of why."
Have a nice day.
Politics!=Law!=Government ("Big G" that is) ...nor does it necessarily imply any particular form of either of the latter.
All that word truly means is the space, behavior and mechanisms people create (or actively DO NOT create) to resolve their differences. On a desert island, two people hurling coconuts at each other would be every bit as "political" as the Prime Minister's Questions. THAT is what "Political Science" is about, not reinforcing one form of government ("little g"), ideology or even the IDEA of -a- government ("Big G") as an entity. See the coconuts again: that's "governing" -- that is, one can govern or engage in government (v.) without becoming The Government (n.). Remember, Political Science is the intersection of Sociology and Economics, which in their purest forms are little more than observation.
Now, in observing this, I note that I have said basically nothing about the politics of this other than it happens to be politicians coming up with the idea, which is a point of fact over which nothing in my mind has any bearing or control. The British government exists and it is doing something absurd. Nothing in that statement illuminates whether I think that government should exist in some form, should exist at all or anything in between. It is just an observation of current FACT. That someone would take that and dribble on with some screed about how I've been "indoctrinated" reall illuminates far more about that person's indoctrination than anything I may or may not have been subject to.
I hope this advances your understanding of what "Political Science" is, if just a smidge.
Hmmm?
Western Sahara? "SeaLand?"
Your InmarSat bill must be something terrific...
I received that "indocrination" on three wildly different continents in four languages? (which, incidentally, is true)
Which "indocrination" trumps?
As helpful as all these technical criticisms of the "cellphone" example are in understanding the Security-101 minutiae of SIGINT, they totally miss the point -- oddly enough by POINTING OUT THE POINT!
The primary overriding point to be made is that regardless of utility in any particular example, the issue is in loosely defining terms that could have absolutely ridiculous results. So, they mandate that they must keep all of these keys with a perpetually appended list of obviously absurd exceptions (read:cellphones, https, ssh/sftp, s/key and all manner of one-time-pads), thus rendering the whole idea rubbish because the necessary exceptions are likely the most needed sources of information. They then criminalize anyone who doesn't comply with that moving target.
As I said, it is just a horrible, horrible joke.
I'm a political scientist by education.
Where does that put me in your example?
Just an example of astoundingly ignorant politicians who don't realize they're effectively criminalizing the use of cellular phones, the constantly changing keys of which would amass petabytes of data within a year, in just the UK--and that's just the keys, not the data they encrypted...and that's just the cellphones.
What absolute morons.
Bluetooth between your cellphone, headset, mouse and keyboard...or your XBox...or your TiVO...or your fridge.
It's not so difficult to imagine.
SUN's old saw "The Network is the Computer" is already supplanting the notion of a "desktop." The desktop is scarcely the "hub" even now. It's just a node.
Vacation in Wilmington. Ah yes, "A Place To Be Somebody" where "It's Good to be First."
Yes, I often find myself thinking "Oooh, St. Moritz or Wilmington? I just can't decide."
My, we take ourselves rather seriously, don't we?
It also makes sense to use language that you have full command of.
Please refrain from using language of which you do not possess full command.
From my favorite Designing Women exchange:
Charlene: "Hi. Where y'all from?"
Woman: "We are from a place where they don't end a sentence with a preposition."
Charlene: "Oh, I'm terribly sorry. Where y'all from, bitch?"
You overestimate the uniformity in thought amongst academics and underestimate their breadth of experience. I can assure you, the academics I've had the pleasure of meeting in rural Africa are well aware of the things you so dismissively think they haven't experienced merely by fact of being academics--and their views are not so divergent from those of the supposedly fat and rich academics in cushy jobs in the U.S.
I would direct you to any APSA event at which you may find illumination on this topic.
I just did a quick check of one of the cheaper hosting companies out there (serverbeach.com). To get unmetered 10Mb/s, it costs about $275/month. That represents a potential sustained load of about 25GB/day, or about 6 DVDs worth of video, say, 12 hours. That's a crapload of video, but still, it does give some indication of what the true cost of all that bandwidth is, considering even that "unmetered" plan certainly assumes that only some percentage of users will truly use up all that bandwidth on a sustained basis--but they'll let you do it at that price should you choose to. It seems to me that there is a very reasonable case to be made for this "tiering" (though, I'm not in favor of it as it is currently defined) -- such that as many users as possible can get the speeds they expect for the services they want without having to pay the industrial-strength rates that many of us are well used to shelling out for certain levels of service.
[[begin childishly inane thread about "unlimited" home accounts now]]
Please note the difference between "Britain" and "Western Europe."
My point was that "The Founding Fathers(tm)" were anything but part of the masses and for the most part were concerned about preserving the rights of the aristocracy, not the commoner, ergo, why they decided you had to be a free, white, land-owning male to vote. The loss of liberty old Ben was speaking of could basically be summed up as "universal suffrage."
The ENTIRE article was ripped from the university site. Not a single added value--in fact, it was negative value as I had to go to the original for the animations. In these cases, can we please bypass to blogospammers and just get the real deal? Pretty please?
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544
That entire screed was about a controversial system in one country, but not even that--just one CITY. So, instead of saying "that's reality in parts of Western Europe" just be honest and say "they're doing something sketchy in central London" -- and before getting so persnickety about how many eons the U.S. is supposedly ahead on these things, Washington, DC has all of these things right now, so rather than being ahead of the game, it's close to deuce, babe.
The masses almost always value security over freedom until they have so little of either a revolution is born.
Now you're starting to sound like the founding fathers. Untenable aristocracy always has this fear, always afraid of that revolution, always chipping away at the freedom of the unwashed masses in order to abate it, yet always painfully aware that it will ultimately be their undoing.
I can onomatopoeically refer to PHP as fffffffffffffuupp.
State and local government are collectively far larger than the federal government, but when people talk about "big government" all they think about is what comes out of Washington, DC. This is really quite sad because almost all of the federal influence on your life necessarily must be filtered through state and local government--Washington just sends the checks. But, it hurts more to admit that you're too lazy to walk down to City Hall and throw a fit than it does to throw your hands into the air and complain about distant Washington, conveniently ignoring the fact that your voice in Washington is probably walking distance from your Barca-lounger.
even though Saddam was a genocidal maniac and just as ruthless as anyone else in the region.
Now THAT, I can agree with. So, when do we invade Israel and Saudi Arabia?
You CAN wrap your mind around time NOT having a beginning?
Neither a finite nor infinite universe are really within the ability of human comprehension as evidenced by the fact that every scientific, philosophical and religious argument out there basically boils down to "everything that exists was created by, erm, uhm, uh, this other thing...and this other thing... and oh, damn it, it just is, okay?"