Apparently I've already decided that for me it doesn't matter, given that I posted. If anything, this has caused me to be more vocal. Something about my rights being violated or some minor such thing, at least according to Alexander, Clapper, and Co. I wonder how they'd feel if we had the same data published hourly on a "What's Alexander doing?" or "Where's Clapper?" web site? After all, it's nothing personally identifying, right?
More seriously, Bruce is relatively respected, certainly more than any 3 letter agency at the moment. And moreover, having actually read the article, he's right. That's exactly what's happening. No foreign or multinational will use US based servers and services from here on out, or very very few naive ones will. People in the US are looking to use non US servers. That alone is a telling statement.
Exactly. The users have moved on, to non-MS phones and tablets, and their success at using these items for what they need is enlightening more people to this lower cost alternative. With that move and the user performance plateau that was reached about 7 years ago, people just don't need to replace nor upgrade computers. And since the masses don't update regularly either, they just don't care when Windows Update goes silent or shows an error (whatever it may do when EOL is reached) and their semi-geek knowledgeable neighbor tell them how to disable the service to stop getting that irritating warning box. And they'll merrily move on.
The US Constitution includes an enumerated list of powers for both the Executive and the Legislative branches. This implies that no other powers are allowed the federal government. The Ninth (and Tenth as well), re-state that the Feds have no powers except those listed. Which means legally speaking the Ninth (and the Tenth) are only relevant if you can prove a given government action is not justified by some other clause of the Constitution.
Actually, I don't have to prove that the government is not justified. The government needs to prove that it is justified. A minor difference, but the onus is on the government.
And if you can prove that the 9tth and 10th are unnecessary.
The 9th and 10th (which some how I edited out of the original posting) were only needed because of the first 8 amendments. The founders wanted to be clear that enumerating rights for the people and the states in no way limited their rights to only those 8. Their primary focus was on limiting the power of the federal government itself.
In other words the fact that you're quoting the Ninth at all is pretty clear evidence you have no clue what the Constitution actually means. In this case it's quite clear the government has the ability to retain data it got legally, because if it didn't it would be extremely tricky for them to run at all.
It's quite clear you are attributing statements that I did not make, and your strawman doesn't make your case either. This is my data, or a company's data. It's not government data in any way, shape, or form. The government doesn't generate it, doesn't operate on it, doesn't require it. The only thing they do is tax revenue flows. They do not need access to lower level data, ever, for any of those reasons. For other reasons, there are warrants which can grant them access when there is a need, along with a paper trail documenting that need.
This means that the only way the Courts can apply it to email is apply analogies from horse and buggy-level technology to your gmail account, and the Courts have historically not been very aggressive about 4th Amendment enforcement.
If you'll note, the founders were careful in their phrasing precisely to not limit it to strawmen such as your horse and buggy example. "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" except "Warrants" issued only "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" which is why evidence of a different crime found during a warrant cannot generally be used by the court. Nothing there about horses and buggies, nor mail nor email for that matter.
Hell, today NYC's stop-and-frisk is much worse from a Fourth Amendment point-of-view, and yet it's virtually impossible to get white people to talk about it. Apparently searching black people without a warrant of any kind is perfectly fine, but reading a white guy's email with a warrant is EVIL.
Now I'd agree that stop and frisk under your guise is a bad thing, but generally the officer has observed something to cause it, Or so goes the statements. The TSA, however, has no such thing, and their searches are patently a violation of the 4th, besides being relatively ineffective given what has passed through their sieve of a gauntlet.
Being able to communicate freely at will globally is pretty idealistic. That will now most likely be strongly gated at national cyber boundaries. No more direct connections. Many countries were already moving this way, now there's a reason to and the US, the strongest proponent of "freedom", no longer has any sway, since "freedom" apparently meant "freedom to spy on you". So watch things quickly segment, get firewalled, and countries that chafed the most at letting their citizens see outside information get walled off completely again.
If you're going to fall for a bait-and-switch that is already reported on, how can you hope to avoid secret government surveillance?
Who said anything about a bait and switch. My topic was something entirely different - the disintegration of what we know today as the internet. Whoosh.
Actually what you really do is reward companies in the countries that have the least transparency, where you know the least about what they do to spy on your, or help others spy on you. You're better off choosing companies that take the risk of publicly asking for more transparency, and employing your own security such as PGP/GPG
I'm not about rewarding anyone. I've always believed in owning my own email servers, but also realize that owning them myself is good only for communications between people on that server, or similar secure servers. If you're communicating with someone on yahoo or gmail or any of the other 3rd party servers, your email might as well be published on the front page of cnn or the like. The same is true for any other communications. Attempting to hide your identity on a site like/. is also pointless. However, this does not mean the government should be allowed to break the law and gather all this data and sift at will.
Which is all a violation of several of the Bill of Rights clauses. As data inspection and/or retention is not allowed by the federal government, that right is mine or my state's. (#9) BTW, that applies to mail address inspection as well.
You realize that Germany has cancelled their agreement, and the rest of the EU is considering similar actions currently. A few more leaks and segmentation of the internet will follow pretty quickly, and the idealistic neutral internet we thought we knew will be but a distant memory. OTOH, this will fix the "issues" with the.com domain, as only US companies will be on it.
How do you know Snowden got everything worth spilling? He was only one low level guy.
One low level guy, and he's causing this much trouble? Think what a real sysadmin would have access too. And you're firing 90% of them because you've publicly named them untrustworthy? How's your nose feel? Punchy? Here comes your fist again....
The distribution industry relied on record sales, not the artists. They relied on ticket sales and ACAP royalties, with a few select exceptions.
Being able to create new labels at will doesn't do much for you - you have to have connections to get into the distribution channel, one that has been owned and crapped away by what's now the big 4, IIRC.
This exactly. In fact, payola was going on before the corporations took over the radio stations, although there were still independent hold outs until the late 90s. MTV, back when it played music in the early 80s, was the source for the major renaissance and new music, because all the owned, err, signed bands wouldn't send videos, and the ones that did were all relative unknowns, exposing the public to an entire wave of new artists. The early 80s were good, then MTV started showing game shows and corporations took over again. I was hopeful that the internet would break the hold corporations had on music, but apparently they've managed to Disneyfy the entire industry with the aforementioned crap.
That was the original point of LongHorn - it was to be managed code throughout, as much as possible, although the core was still to be NT. Who knows how much was FUD, and how much was real? Only those working on it. But they did wind up scrapping 3+ years work, some articles at the time stated it was at least 5 years.
Worse, they're sharing. I have a dead FB account that I still get emails for. They are now asking if I know people that they don't have a clue about, ie, people I've met long since I created that account for business reasons and which was only linked to a few coworkers for testing. These would also be people that don't know those coworkers. It's actually creepy. I'm not sure who is sharing with whom, but personally identifiable data is obviously being shared. That still doesn't mean that I want to make it any easier for them. Chrome is a test browser only for that reason, and will probably never be more.
They didn't cause MS to throw out everything after years of development and start from scratch using a different kernel.
When did that happen? I'm pretty sure Windows Vista used an evolution of the XP kernel (which came from the NT kernel).
About the time they discovered that.NET wasn't a good choice for OS level development. About 3+ years of development got tossed out (You've heard of LongHorn, right? The original LongHorn? The managed codebase OS?) and they fell back to the server 2003 kernel and lickedy split pushed out a new consumer version as fast as they possibly could with 5 years of promises in a little over 2. The results were the most abysmal OS MS ever released, well, at least until Win8 came out.
It still isn't a core "browser" feature. Add-on sure, browser, no thanks. Browsers have enough issues being secure as is, don't add a whole new vector.
Slashdot Mirror
I think creating a spam filter forward with a rot1-13 variable of the spam would keep them busy enough :)
Apparently I've already decided that for me it doesn't matter, given that I posted. If anything, this has caused me to be more vocal. Something about my rights being violated or some minor such thing, at least according to Alexander, Clapper, and Co. I wonder how they'd feel if we had the same data published hourly on a "What's Alexander doing?" or "Where's Clapper?" web site? After all, it's nothing personally identifying, right?
More seriously, Bruce is relatively respected, certainly more than any 3 letter agency at the moment. And moreover, having actually read the article, he's right. That's exactly what's happening. No foreign or multinational will use US based servers and services from here on out, or very very few naive ones will. People in the US are looking to use non US servers. That alone is a telling statement.
But Bruce is Bruce, and he'll hatchet up all those zombies!!!!
Exactly. The users have moved on, to non-MS phones and tablets, and their success at using these items for what they need is enlightening more people to this lower cost alternative. With that move and the user performance plateau that was reached about 7 years ago, people just don't need to replace nor upgrade computers. And since the masses don't update regularly either, they just don't care when Windows Update goes silent or shows an error (whatever it may do when EOL is reached) and their semi-geek knowledgeable neighbor tell them how to disable the service to stop getting that irritating warning box. And they'll merrily move on.
The US Constitution includes an enumerated list of powers for both the Executive and the Legislative branches. This implies that no other powers are allowed the federal government. The Ninth (and Tenth as well), re-state that the Feds have no powers except those listed. Which means legally speaking the Ninth (and the Tenth) are only relevant if you can prove a given government action is not justified by some other clause of the Constitution.
Actually, I don't have to prove that the government is not justified. The government needs to prove that it is justified. A minor difference, but the onus is on the government.
And if you can prove that the 9tth and 10th are unnecessary.
The 9th and 10th (which some how I edited out of the original posting) were only needed because of the first 8 amendments. The founders wanted to be clear that enumerating rights for the people and the states in no way limited their rights to only those 8. Their primary focus was on limiting the power of the federal government itself.
In other words the fact that you're quoting the Ninth at all is pretty clear evidence you have no clue what the Constitution actually means. In this case it's quite clear the government has the ability to retain data it got legally, because if it didn't it would be extremely tricky for them to run at all.
It's quite clear you are attributing statements that I did not make, and your strawman doesn't make your case either. This is my data, or a company's data. It's not government data in any way, shape, or form. The government doesn't generate it, doesn't operate on it, doesn't require it. The only thing they do is tax revenue flows. They do not need access to lower level data, ever, for any of those reasons. For other reasons, there are warrants which can grant them access when there is a need, along with a paper trail documenting that need.
This means that the only way the Courts can apply it to email is apply analogies from horse and buggy-level technology to your gmail account, and the Courts have historically not been very aggressive about 4th Amendment enforcement.
If you'll note, the founders were careful in their phrasing precisely to not limit it to strawmen such as your horse and buggy example. "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" except "Warrants" issued only "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" which is why evidence of a different crime found during a warrant cannot generally be used by the court. Nothing there about horses and buggies, nor mail nor email for that matter.
Hell, today NYC's stop-and-frisk is much worse from a Fourth Amendment point-of-view, and yet it's virtually impossible to get white people to talk about it. Apparently searching black people without a warrant of any kind is perfectly fine, but reading a white guy's email with a warrant is EVIL.
Now I'd agree that stop and frisk under your guise is a bad thing, but generally the officer has observed something to cause it, Or so goes the statements. The TSA, however, has no such thing, and their searches are patently a violation of the 4th, besides being relatively ineffective given what has passed through their sieve of a gauntlet.
Being able to communicate freely at will globally is pretty idealistic. That will now most likely be strongly gated at national cyber boundaries. No more direct connections. Many countries were already moving this way, now there's a reason to and the US, the strongest proponent of "freedom", no longer has any sway, since "freedom" apparently meant "freedom to spy on you". So watch things quickly segment, get firewalled, and countries that chafed the most at letting their citizens see outside information get walled off completely again.
If you're going to fall for a bait-and-switch that is already reported on, how can you hope to avoid secret government surveillance?
Who said anything about a bait and switch. My topic was something entirely different - the disintegration of what we know today as the internet. Whoosh.
Actually what you really do is reward companies in the countries that have the least transparency, where you know the least about what they do to spy on your, or help others spy on you. You're better off choosing companies that take the risk of publicly asking for more transparency, and employing your own security such as PGP/GPG
I'm not about rewarding anyone. I've always believed in owning my own email servers, but also realize that owning them myself is good only for communications between people on that server, or similar secure servers. If you're communicating with someone on yahoo or gmail or any of the other 3rd party servers, your email might as well be published on the front page of cnn or the like. The same is true for any other communications. Attempting to hide your identity on a site like /. is also pointless. However, this does not mean the government should be allowed to break the law and gather all this data and sift at will.
Which is all a violation of several of the Bill of Rights clauses. As data inspection and/or retention is not allowed by the federal government, that right is mine or my state's. (#9) BTW, that applies to mail address inspection as well.
You realize that Germany has cancelled their agreement, and the rest of the EU is considering similar actions currently. A few more leaks and segmentation of the internet will follow pretty quickly, and the idealistic neutral internet we thought we knew will be but a distant memory. OTOH, this will fix the "issues" with the .com domain, as only US companies will be on it.
the UK is now in the leauge of China, and Iran as far as internet access goes.
Actually, China is monitoring and filtering UK's internet access. (Huawei) Welcome to you Chinese overlords.
But they outsource to the low-bid group, Booz-Hamilton
Who said anything about pilfering. There's a few old hard drives in the back closet.... Every sysadmin has them.
How do you know Snowden got everything worth spilling? He was only one low level guy.
One low level guy, and he's causing this much trouble? Think what a real sysadmin would have access too. And you're firing 90% of them because you've publicly named them untrustworthy? How's your nose feel? Punchy? Here comes your fist again....
That was the original point of LongHorn - it was to be managed code throughout, as much as possible
Ultimately most of the userland did end up that way didn't it?
Maybe so, but not in LongHorn. The bastardization that followed? Yes.
although the core was still to be NT
So when you say they "fell back to the server 2003 kernel" what were they using?
It started with the XP kernel. You knew this, why ask?
At that point, does it matter?
But the US was bedbug free by then, and almost bald eagle free as the naysayers kept wanting to use DDT on their crops.
The distribution industry relied on record sales, not the artists. They relied on ticket sales and ACAP royalties, with a few select exceptions.
Being able to create new labels at will doesn't do much for you - you have to have connections to get into the distribution channel, one that has been owned and crapped away by what's now the big 4, IIRC.
This exactly. In fact, payola was going on before the corporations took over the radio stations, although there were still independent hold outs until the late 90s. MTV, back when it played music in the early 80s, was the source for the major renaissance and new music, because all the owned, err, signed bands wouldn't send videos, and the ones that did were all relative unknowns, exposing the public to an entire wave of new artists. The early 80s were good, then MTV started showing game shows and corporations took over again. I was hopeful that the internet would break the hold corporations had on music, but apparently they've managed to Disneyfy the entire industry with the aforementioned crap.
That was the original point of LongHorn - it was to be managed code throughout, as much as possible, although the core was still to be NT. Who knows how much was FUD, and how much was real? Only those working on it. But they did wind up scrapping 3+ years work, some articles at the time stated it was at least 5 years.
I'm talking in terms of sales. I fortunately no longer use nor develop any MS software.
Worse, they're sharing. I have a dead FB account that I still get emails for. They are now asking if I know people that they don't have a clue about, ie, people I've met long since I created that account for business reasons and which was only linked to a few coworkers for testing. These would also be people that don't know those coworkers. It's actually creepy. I'm not sure who is sharing with whom, but personally identifiable data is obviously being shared. That still doesn't mean that I want to make it any easier for them. Chrome is a test browser only for that reason, and will probably never be more.
Looks like part of the core to me - I download FF, and look - there it is. No add-on needs to be installed.
They didn't cause MS to throw out everything after years of development and start from scratch using a different kernel.
When did that happen? I'm pretty sure Windows Vista used an evolution of the XP kernel (which came from the NT kernel).
About the time they discovered that .NET wasn't a good choice for OS level development. About 3+ years of development got tossed out (You've heard of LongHorn, right? The original LongHorn? The managed codebase OS?) and they fell back to the server 2003 kernel and lickedy split pushed out a new consumer version as fast as they possibly could with 5 years of promises in a little over 2. The results were the most abysmal OS MS ever released, well, at least until Win8 came out.
It still isn't a core "browser" feature. Add-on sure, browser, no thanks. Browsers have enough issues being secure as is, don't add a whole new vector.