...."According to McAfee Avert Labs, Mac platform vulnerability discovery rates have increased by 228 percent in the past three years alone, from 45 in 2003 to 143 last year.....
According to statistics our small town will grow 500% in the next 3 years whereas LA will grow only by 5%. The facts are, that even after all the world's hackers desperately trying to win the "first to really screw up Apple computers" sweepstakes, there are still ZERO, or nearly so, outbreaks of infections of Mac systems, of which there are millions. There have been a few theoretical "vulnerabilities" touted by FUD propagators such as the company you quote, but how many effective Mac malwares are there out there, actually circulating in the bloodstream of the Internet? Windows could be made secure IF MS wanted to, but, despite their loud, insistent rhetoric, they don't really want to. Why should they make their system secure and then get sued by the likes of the company you quote, because they put all the "security" companies out of business. For years now MS has been promising that the "next" OS will be secure, and all along it has only gotten worse and worse. Does anybody here REALLY believe that THIS time, with VISTA it will be different? MS is only interested in their bottom line, like any other business. Good security adds COST, not profits. Give me a break!
....... which makes you wonder why no other large company uses macs?....
That's an easy one! Since IT decisions, as to what OS to run is made by the self-serving IT people, why should they choose a system that dramatically reduces the need for the existence of their jobs? Guarding against and cleaning up all the malwares and other foibles that plague Windows systems, has been a steady growth industry for years now and constitutes job security for IT workers and their bosses. It doesn't look like this will change much, if at all with the introduction of VISTA.
....Tell me has anyone here tried to compile and test an application with any higher level of functionality without administrative rights to the local machine?.....
Yes, the program is called Microsoft Office for Mac. To install this program, a non-admin user may drag and drop it into any folder in his/her user space and it will work just fine. Only if there are several users, must the program be placed in the systems application folder, which must be done by an administrator. Many, if not most, ordinary programs do NOT need administrator rights on OSX. Device drivers, of course may only be installed by administrators.
Now WHY can't Windows also work like this? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Windows is still a single user system at heart, with multiuser capabilities added as an afterthought. OSX is based on UNIX, which was conceived and built from the beginning as a true multi-user, network based system.
Which is where the blame rightfully belongs. Why should any program, other than an installer need access to the system areas? Apple's OSX can manage this. No OSX programs need admin access other than to initially install, and then non even always. Many programs may be installed by drag and drop by a non-admin user into the users own space and the system is never molested. If the program is to be used by many users, then it must be placed into the system Application folder, which of course can only be done by an admin user. If Apple can do this, why can't Billy and Co.? Could it be that there are some very fundamental design flaws in Windows itself?
....It might turn out that they get tired of not being able to install MS's own software....
It should be considered normal or even mandatory to have admin rights in order to INSTALL software. However, many programs require admin in order to merely RUN correctly. Users not having admin rights should be able to run all software which should have NO reason to write anything into the system space. If VISTA users don't run as admin, much of their existing software will be useless and these users will not take kindly to have to buy new or upgraded versions. The will blame MS, saying: "my favorite program xx ran just fine under XP on my old computer and now, on this new system it crashes each time. It must be MS fault and this new OS/Computer!" Most users will likely get VISTA on their shiny new PC from Best Buy etc. They will storm back into these stores, mad as hornets, complaining that most if not all of their favorite programs don't run on this expensive, new, be all, end all fancy computer they just took home a week ago or so. MS may realize this, and as usual choose compatibility at the expense of security and ship VISTA setup with admin user accounts. Then of course, malware will still be able to stealthily invade the fancy new machines and make them part of the millions of zombie networks on the Internet.
.....Police can search and if they find an encrypted file or disk they can demand......
To determine unequivocally whether a file is encrypted or not without having the key is not as cut and dried as a locked safe. Almost any safe will open with a nitroglycerin "key".
Good encryption makes the cipher-text look very much like random data. The accused can claim there is no encryption or that he/she doesn't have a key. Unless the cops can decipher the message, there is no way to prove such a claim to be false. There are programs that write random data to unused portions of a disk, where real files used to be.
Of course, anybody can resort to torture in order to extract information from a suspect. Threat of jail is just another form or torture, perhaps not as draconian as a rubber hose treatment or electric shocks.
....that Redmond actually does something right with Vista and finally gets the model right......
In most cases, people have more money invested in their software, than in the hardware. When the new VISTA system refuses to run much of their software, they'll get upset at MS. MS up until now has ALWAYS chosen backwards compatibility over security. In order to run their existing programs, users will just run at whatever privilege level needed to get things to work.
Why should the "Fruit Company" want to compete at the rock bottom price level of computers, any more than BMW would in cars? No programs running on Macs that I know, of require more than ordinary user status. Most of our users simply are NOT given the admin password and therefore cannot have write access to system areas. Nobody runs as admin full time. There is really nothing that MS can do if so many existing programs will not run correctly unless run under an admin account.
.....You mean the OSX tax. Buy a Mac and you're forced to accept all that preloaded software that comes with it, even if you don't want it.....
You mean the Windows tax. Buy a Dell and you're forced to accept all that preloaded software that comes with it, even if you don't want it.
I cannot understand all the arguments about hardware. It's the software, of which the OS is only an enabler that makes a computer do something useful. What does the long promised vaporware VISTA bring, which OSX Tiger doesn't have already? Other than games, which are better on consoles than on laptops, what function does Windows software bring which isn't also available for OSX? Apple makes Bootcamp available, not so users can run games, but for those relatively few who must run proprietary corporate software unavailable for Mac. Some traveling sales people may have to log into their company with special Windows software.
......and as soon as you fail to do so the government should no longer be obligated to take care of you......
So then if someone who has been categorized as such a person shows up in an emergency room, very ill, does he/she just get told: "Tough, you didn't follow the rules we (the Government in this case) set for you, go home and die?" If not, then who pays for their care? Right now the law says that the care facility may NOT turn them away, just because they have no money nor insurance. That is part of the reason why medical care is so expensive for those who pay insurance premiums. The ones who pay must also pay for the ones that don't for whatever reason.
......Losing your system to a virus is a step back.....
If the OS guards against the installation of code by asking for a password, there is at least some level of protection against a systemwide attack from such an attachment. Because most Windows users can install *anything* without getting asked for a password, such a virus too can install whatever it wants and the user will never know. On OSX, a user is at least asked for a password which should be a warning. Of course ignorant users usually give such a password, especially if the document comes for a friend or associate. Getting asked for a password is still better than the virus just stealthily installing and propagating.
.....but have to give reasonable evidence to suggest to a court that you don't.......
In the USA at least it's still the other way around. In a court of law the witness is presumed to be telling the truth unless the opposition can prove otherwise or discredit the witness. The accusers have to give reasonable evidence that accused does have the key, and even then the accused may refer them politely to the constitutional provision against self incrimination and tell them to shove it. The existence of data on someone's computer may appear encrypted, but it could also just be a whole pile of random bits, because that's exactly what good encryption is supposed to do, make the data look random. Even then, if it can be shown to be some encrypted data, it still in no way proves that the owner of the computer has the key to make sense out of the data. In the UK then, it appears that now the government wants to torture the existence of and the key itself out of the accused.
....If they have a search warrant, you have to give them acces to your house, office, confidentia files etc also.....
They can search all that and if they don't find what they are looking for, that's just too bad. They can't search the computer between your ears, at least not yet, to find out if the key they are looking for is stored inside. Throughout the ages, governments have always used the threat of punishment, often terrible torture, physical or mental, to extract information from people. The threat of jail is a form of torture to be used to extract information. It is only a small way down the torture path well trodden by all autocratic governments. Why should accused terrorists, who are willing to blow themselves and others to smithereens, give in to any kind of torture or the treat thereof, in order to give governments the tools to hurt their fellow terrorists and their cause?
It appears that in the UK the accusers don't have to prove someone's guilt, but the accused must prove their innocence. If they can't or won't, they are presumed guilty and can be punished because they refuse to co-operate with their accusers. In the UK there seems to be no protection against self incrimination, such as as the US constitution.
.....The simple answer is that you run it like auto insurance in many states.......
However, most states still use the police power "violence" to force people to have insurance, ie., pay an "insurance tax". The unfortunate fact is that there mare many who for a variety of reasons refuse to act responsibly. In the case of automobile insurance, if someone smashes up your car and severely injures you, how could you be compensated and have your car repaired or replaced and your injuries looked after?
Most laws are made because there are some who don't care about others in even the slightest. If someone abuses their bodies with chemicals and then get very ill, who should bear the cost of treating them? Should they just be allowed to die in the misery if they don't have the means to pay? Private actions can and do have public consequences and the public must in some measure try to control private irresponsibility.
......refuse to hand over you keys, have the case against you collapse.....
No, you invent a key and give it to them. Then when it doesn't work, you tell them that's the only key you have. Since they can't decrypt the message, they may suspect you are, but can't prove you to be a liar and still have no case. Of course in some places they torture the key out of people. When encryption becomes common the law enforcers will just have to revert to good old fashioned police work, like it was before computers were invented, or outlaw all encryption. However, that would put a severe crimp into, if not outright abolish all electronic commerce.
.....What happens when mp3 files no longer play on the next gen iPod....
What advantage would there be to Apple to do that? The vast majority of music on most people's iPods is ripped from their own and friend's CDs. Those are usually mp3 or maybe AAC format without DRM. I doubt that there are very many ipod users who can afford thousands of $$$ worth of downloaded music to fill up their ipods. I know for sure that I don't. Illegal downloads are still vastly more popular than all legal services put together. No **AA and all their lawyers is ever going to stop people sharing their favorite entertainments by all means available to them. They have done so ever since the tape recorder was invented. If all DRM of every type were eliminated, the sharing of content would not change much.
......One can buy a lot better notebook much lower price.....
I really wonder how often this sort of phrase will yet be bandied about. Of course there will always be a cheaper, crappier product available. It seems that of all people, the/. readers ought to know that it is the software which makes a computer useful. Many would dearly love to run OSX on their cheap no-name boxes, but Apple will not make that easy, if at all possible. A computer is the sum total of many parts, but its software is the key component. Yes, Apple computers cost more, but now you can have two computers in one and that makes Macs a very good value. Windows runs as well or better on Apple laptops as on any other of comparable cost. In essence, Windows users get OSX free to try out and eventually find out it is way ahead of Win XP and already, today, has many features of Vista vaporware. Of course if the purchase price alone is the consideration, by all means get the cheapest computer available.
.....and music labels will not release unprotected videos......
Anyone who wants to be entertained bad enough to buy DRMed content and thereby be controlled by the big media companies must lead a very boring life. There are many activities that can be rewarding and fun, other than just being passively entertained. Some of these can even be found on the Internet and cost little or nothing. For example, long before recordings were invented people were making their own music. Learn to play a musical instrument, such as a guitar, clarinet or flute. Have some fun singing with others. Video and still cameras are quite inexpensive. Learn photography and/or cinematography. Instead of paying to be entertained, people could learn to entertain others or at least themselves. Many simple arts and crafts don't cost an arm and a leg and can provide much satisfying fun. Stop supporting the greedy, self-serving, control hungry, root-kit seeding entertainment conglomerates with your hard earned money.
......It just works? Try streaming music videos. Most sites, like Yahoo Music and MTV, require Windows.....
It's of course Microsoft's fault for not adhering to web standards and worse, subverting them. The lazy site programmers also don't have to test for compatibility and computer independence. Anything on the Internet should be open and not need a particular computer or OS in order to work correctly. Fortunately neither MS nor anyone else can control the Internet and it is to the loss of these companies you mention if their sites don't work with EVERY computer system. Google doesn't have that attitude and that may be why they are beating the crap out of those lazy bastards that can't or won't let everybody use the Internet on an equal basis.
.....There is an absolute expectation of privacy when using the phone network.......
That is at least the theory, but as my Dad used to say: "All theory is gray". Now the courts will have to decide whether is remains gray, is black or white, but no matter what the verdict, for some lawyers it is a lot of green and you and I (as rate payers) get to pay for it all. Businesses NEVER lose money, if they can pass the cost to their customers and phone companies have a captive audience.
.....While it may be true that most users expect things to just work, ask them how many times this really happens?....
It happens every single time with OSX on Macs. Take that PC monitor and Keyboard and plug them into a Mac Mini and in a few minutes you'll be doing everything the article mentioned. Music, commercial or other DVD's, iTunes, photos from your camera. Buy a copy of MS office and all your files will work with your Windows using friends. The Mini will network with Windows computers and be free from all of the malware circulating on the Internet. OSX and Linux have a common heritage. For desktop use, what is the possible advantage of Linux for a user like the article writer over a Mac? You can even boot Windows so you can play all but the most demanding 3D games.
Since when do you have a constitutional right NOT to be watched in public? Whether you like it or not, it is the PUBLIC phone network and Internet, the same as the public roads. Get used to it.
....The west is reaping what the greedy bastards have being sowing in our names for ages.....
Isn't it strange that so many people from those "poor exploited" countries, (11 million or so) such as Mexico, STILL try to get to the headquarters country of these "greedy bastards" any way they can? Maybe they want to share in the greed, since they brave rivers, deserts, walls and other obstacles in their way to get here. They brave the open seas in nutshell boats from Cuba to make it to Florida because the conditions of life are so terrible here in the land of greed and domestic spying, rather than stay in their communistic "paradise". They have paid sums of money and let themselves be locked up and die in stinking, airless shipping containers from China and other parts of Asia, in trying to get across the obstacle of the great Pacific Ocean to our shores. All go to great effort to share in our greedy and enslaved way of life and work very hard to get to live under the terrible US government!
The terrorists who for one reason or another don't enjoy our way of life, only make life more miserable where they are now, want to destroy us so that we should be as miserable and enslaved by them as they are and have made the people where they are in power.
......In any case, the extent of the violation of my privacy and my rights guaranteed by the constitution are not measured by counting snouts......
I can't understand why there are so many who get so worked up about the government knowing that you called up your mommy or grandma or anybody else for that matter. It is just a fact of life that if you use a public communications network SOMEBODY other than you and the person(s) you called is going to know about it and if need be will also know the content of your communications. Why is that any different than when you use the public roads?
Any time more than one person (you) knows a secret it is no longer such. Under the right (wrong) circumstances it can become public knowledge. Therefore it is best for everybody to order their lives and communications in such a way that they can stand up to public scrutiny. Anybody you GIVE private information to has the obligation to not pass this on to others, especially so, if the release of this information can do damage. Your financial information, for example needs to be private, not because YOU are doing something bad, but to prevent someone else from doing something bad TO you. Who and where you call is not information you have given to anybody, but is simply collected by the phone company as part of doing their business. I don't see what value it can possibly be for the government or anybody else to know that I call my mother regularly or my stockbroker and all the other calls I make. On the other hand, if law enforcement suspects that I am breaking the law, why should they not be allowed to find out who I called and when? They have for years staked out suspects houses and tailed them everywhere. What's the difference? Nobody has ever had to get a court order to put a watch on your house to find out comings and goings. So now they are watching the comings and goings of your phone calls, SO WHAT?
.....Unfortunately it doesn't work with Netscape over 4.x or with Firefox and that I know of neither of these allows any of the above to be blocked by website, they're either allow all or block all.....
Zone Alarm is a fine program, but it needs to be on each computer. Alternatively, one computer can also be set up as a router/NAT etc, but most be running at all times. Running a whole computer 27/7 just for that adds up in energy cost an maintenance expense.
We have a number of computers, both OSX and Windows on our network. We use a relatively inexpensive router/NAT/Fireawall with built in wired/wireless access and DHCP service. It can permit or deny access by type of service, time of day/week, port numbers, address, URL or keyword phrases. It uses a web interface, but is still a bit of work to set up properly. Once set up, nobody on the network can access forbidden content, regardless which computer or browser they use. It also has various logging capabilities and can be set up to e-mail these logs and intrusion alerts.
.....Mac OS X has no manual, and no messages are presented, or warnings given, suggesting you should be using a separate account for your day to day use......
That is indeed a sad security oversight on the part of Apple, which I hope they will fix in the next iteration of OSX. I have set up a good number of Macs for people and always make a normal user account that doesn't have admin privileges. Even so, the default OSX admin account doesn't automatically allow the user to do do anything he/she wants to without entering their password each time certain areas of the system need to be written to.
A standard, non-admin user account on OSX allows the normal running of every program, which unfortunately is NOT the case in Windows. Many Windows programs hail back to the single user days, when there was only one user who had total access to the computer. It was/is after all a PERSONAL computer. The UNIX heritage of OSX started right at its inception as a multi-user, networked system in academic and scientific settings. The multi-user and networking capability of Windows was added as an afterthought. This is why there are still the vestiges of single user, insecure programs that will not work properly, unless the user is granted full, unfettered access to the whole computer. This is not DIRECTLY the fault of MS, but by the fact that they allow their software developers to still get away with this laziness by giving all users full access to the computer by default. All their promises of better security in the long promised VISA will be only so much hot air, if they still allow programs to be made which will only work in an admin account. Of course if they do fix this, many, if not most existing programs will break and will need modifications. Up until now MS has always chosen backward compatibility over security, so cross your fingers, but don't hold your breath that this will change.
Slashdot Mirror
...."According to McAfee Avert Labs, Mac platform vulnerability discovery rates have increased by 228 percent in the past three years alone, from 45 in 2003 to 143 last year.....
According to statistics our small town will grow 500% in the next 3 years whereas LA will grow only by 5%. The facts are, that even after all the world's hackers desperately trying to win the "first to really screw up Apple computers" sweepstakes, there are still ZERO, or nearly so, outbreaks of infections of Mac systems, of which there are millions. There have been a few theoretical "vulnerabilities" touted by FUD propagators such as the company you quote, but how many effective Mac malwares are there out there, actually circulating in the bloodstream of the Internet? Windows could be made secure IF MS wanted to, but, despite their loud, insistent rhetoric, they don't really want to. Why should they make their system secure and then get sued by the likes of the company you quote, because they put all the "security" companies out of business. For years now MS has been promising that the "next" OS will be secure, and all along it has only gotten worse and worse. Does anybody here REALLY believe that THIS time, with VISTA it will be different? MS is only interested in their bottom line, like any other business. Good security adds COST, not profits. Give me a break!
....... which makes you wonder why no other large company uses macs?....
That's an easy one! Since IT decisions, as to what OS to run is made by the self-serving IT people, why should they choose a system that dramatically reduces the need for the existence of their jobs? Guarding against and cleaning up all the malwares and other foibles that plague Windows systems, has been a steady growth industry for years now and constitutes job security for IT workers and their bosses. It doesn't look like this will change much, if at all with the introduction of VISTA.
....Tell me has anyone here tried to compile and test an application with any higher level of functionality without administrative rights to the local machine?.....
Yes, the program is called Microsoft Office for Mac. To install this program, a non-admin user may drag and drop it into any folder in his/her user space and it will work just fine. Only if there are several users, must the program be placed in the systems application folder, which must be done by an administrator. Many, if not most, ordinary programs do NOT need administrator rights on OSX. Device drivers, of course may only be installed by administrators.
Now WHY can't Windows also work like this? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Windows is still a single user system at heart, with multiuser capabilities added as an afterthought. OSX is based on UNIX, which was conceived and built from the beginning as a true multi-user, network based system.
.....Everyone is quick to blame MS for this.....
Which is where the blame rightfully belongs. Why should any program, other than an installer need access to the system areas? Apple's OSX can manage this. No OSX programs need admin access other than to initially install, and then non even always. Many programs may be installed by drag and drop by a non-admin user into the users own space and the system is never molested. If the program is to be used by many users, then it must be placed into the system Application folder, which of course can only be done by an admin user. If Apple can do this, why can't Billy and Co.? Could it be that there are some very fundamental design flaws in Windows itself?
....It might turn out that they get tired of not being able to install MS's own software....
It should be considered normal or even mandatory to have admin rights in order to INSTALL software. However, many programs require admin in order to merely RUN correctly. Users not having admin rights should be able to run all software which should have NO reason to write anything into the system space. If VISTA users don't run as admin, much of their existing software will be useless and these users will not take kindly to have to buy new or upgraded versions. The will blame MS, saying: "my favorite program xx ran just fine under XP on my old computer and now, on this new system it crashes each time. It must be MS fault and this new OS/Computer!" Most users will likely get VISTA on their shiny new PC from Best Buy etc. They will storm back into these stores, mad as hornets, complaining that most if not all of their favorite programs don't run on this expensive, new, be all, end all fancy computer they just took home a week ago or so. MS may realize this, and as usual choose compatibility at the expense of security and ship VISTA setup with admin user accounts. Then of course, malware will still be able to stealthily invade the fancy new machines and make them part of the millions of zombie networks on the Internet.
.....Police can search and if they find an encrypted file or disk they can demand......
To determine unequivocally whether a file is encrypted or not without having the key is not as cut and dried as a locked safe. Almost any safe will open with a nitroglycerin "key".
Good encryption makes the cipher-text look very much like random data. The accused can claim there is no encryption or that he/she doesn't have a key. Unless the cops can decipher the message, there is no way to prove such a claim to be false. There are programs that write random data to unused portions of a disk, where real files used to be.
Of course, anybody can resort to torture in order to extract information from a suspect. Threat of jail is just another form or torture, perhaps not as draconian as a rubber hose treatment or electric shocks.
....that Redmond actually does something right with Vista and finally gets the model right......
In most cases, people have more money invested in their software, than in the hardware. When the new VISTA system refuses to run much of their software, they'll get upset at MS. MS up until now has ALWAYS chosen backwards compatibility over security. In order to run their existing programs, users will just run at whatever privilege level needed to get things to work.
Why should the "Fruit Company" want to compete at the rock bottom price level of computers, any more than BMW would in cars? No programs running on Macs that I know, of require more than ordinary user status. Most of our users simply are NOT given the admin password and therefore cannot have write access to system areas. Nobody runs as admin full time. There is really nothing that MS can do if so many existing programs will not run correctly unless run under an admin account.
.....You mean the OSX tax. Buy a Mac and you're forced to accept all that preloaded software that comes with it, even if you don't want it.....
You mean the Windows tax. Buy a Dell and you're forced to accept all that preloaded software that comes with it, even if you don't want it.
I cannot understand all the arguments about hardware. It's the software, of which the OS is only an enabler that makes a computer do something useful. What does the long promised vaporware VISTA bring, which OSX Tiger doesn't have already? Other than games, which are better on consoles than on laptops, what function does Windows software bring which isn't also available for OSX? Apple makes Bootcamp available, not so users can run games, but for those relatively few who must run proprietary corporate software unavailable for Mac. Some traveling sales people may have to log into their company with special Windows software.
......and as soon as you fail to do so the government should no longer be obligated to take care of you......
So then if someone who has been categorized as such a person shows up in an emergency room, very ill, does he/she just get told: "Tough, you didn't follow the rules we (the Government in this case) set for you, go home and die?" If not, then who pays for their care? Right now the law says that the care facility may NOT turn them away, just because they have no money nor insurance. That is part of the reason why medical care is so expensive for those who pay insurance premiums. The ones who pay must also pay for the ones that don't for whatever reason.
......Losing your system to a virus is a step back.....
If the OS guards against the installation of code by asking for a password, there is at least some level of protection against a systemwide attack from such an attachment. Because most Windows users can install *anything* without getting asked for a password, such a virus too can install whatever it wants and the user will never know. On OSX, a user is at least asked for a password which should be a warning. Of course ignorant users usually give such a password, especially if the document comes for a friend or associate. Getting asked for a password is still better than the virus just stealthily installing and propagating.
.....but have to give reasonable evidence to suggest to a court that you don't.......
In the USA at least it's still the other way around. In a court of law the witness is presumed to be telling the truth unless the opposition can prove otherwise or discredit the witness. The accusers have to give reasonable evidence that accused does have the key, and even then the accused may refer them politely to the constitutional provision against self incrimination and tell them to shove it. The existence of data on someone's computer may appear encrypted, but it could also just be a whole pile of random bits, because that's exactly what good encryption is supposed to do, make the data look random. Even then, if it can be shown to be some encrypted data, it still in no way proves that the owner of the computer has the key to make sense out of the data. In the UK then, it appears that now the government wants to torture the existence of and the key itself out of the accused.
....If they have a search warrant, you have to give them acces to your house, office, confidentia files etc also.....
They can search all that and if they don't find what they are looking for, that's just too bad. They can't search the computer between your ears, at least not yet, to find out if the key they are looking for is stored inside. Throughout the ages, governments have always used the threat of punishment, often terrible torture, physical or mental, to extract information from people. The threat of jail is a form of torture to be used to extract information. It is only a small way down the torture path well trodden by all autocratic governments. Why should accused terrorists, who are willing to blow themselves and others to smithereens, give in to any kind of torture or the treat thereof, in order to give governments the tools to hurt their fellow terrorists and their cause?
It appears that in the UK the accusers don't have to prove someone's guilt, but the accused must prove their innocence. If they can't or won't, they are presumed guilty and can be punished because they refuse to co-operate with their accusers. In the UK there seems to be no protection against self incrimination, such as as the US constitution.
.....The simple answer is that you run it like auto insurance in many states.......
However, most states still use the police power "violence" to force people to have insurance, ie., pay an "insurance tax". The unfortunate fact is that there mare many who for a variety of reasons refuse to act responsibly. In the case of automobile insurance, if someone smashes up your car and severely injures you, how could you be compensated and have your car repaired or replaced and your injuries looked after?
Most laws are made because there are some who don't care about others in even the slightest. If someone abuses their bodies with chemicals and then get very ill, who should bear the cost of treating them? Should they just be allowed to die in the misery if they don't have the means to pay? Private actions can and do have public consequences and the public must in some measure try to control private irresponsibility.
......refuse to hand over you keys, have the case against you collapse.....
No, you invent a key and give it to them. Then when it doesn't work, you tell them that's the only key you have. Since they can't decrypt the message, they may suspect you are, but can't prove you to be a liar and still have no case. Of course in some places they torture the key out of people. When encryption becomes common the law enforcers will just have to revert to good old fashioned police work, like it was before computers were invented, or outlaw all encryption. However, that would put a severe crimp into, if not outright abolish all electronic commerce.
.....What happens when mp3 files no longer play on the next gen iPod....
What advantage would there be to Apple to do that? The vast majority of music on most people's iPods is ripped from their own and friend's CDs. Those are usually mp3 or maybe AAC format without DRM. I doubt that there are very many ipod users who can afford thousands of $$$ worth of downloaded music to fill up their ipods. I know for sure that I don't. Illegal downloads are still vastly more popular than all legal services put together. No **AA and all their lawyers is ever going to stop people sharing their favorite entertainments by all means available to them. They have done so ever since the tape recorder was invented. If all DRM of every type were eliminated, the sharing of content would not change much.
......One can buy a lot better notebook much lower price.....
/. readers ought to know that it is the software which makes a computer useful. Many would dearly love to run OSX on their cheap no-name boxes, but Apple will not make that easy, if at all possible. A computer is the sum total of many parts, but its software is the key component. Yes, Apple computers cost more, but now you can have two computers in one and that makes Macs a very good value. Windows runs as well or better on Apple laptops as on any other of comparable cost. In essence, Windows users get OSX free to try out and eventually find out it is way ahead of Win XP and already, today, has many features of Vista vaporware. Of course if the purchase price alone is the consideration, by all means get the cheapest computer available.
I really wonder how often this sort of phrase will yet be bandied about. Of course there will always be a cheaper, crappier product available. It seems that of all people, the
.....and music labels will not release unprotected videos......
Anyone who wants to be entertained bad enough to buy DRMed content and thereby be controlled by the big media companies must lead a very boring life. There are many activities that can be rewarding and fun, other than just being passively entertained. Some of these can even be found on the Internet and cost little or nothing. For example, long before recordings were invented people were making their own music. Learn to play a musical instrument, such as a guitar, clarinet or flute. Have some fun singing with others. Video and still cameras are quite inexpensive. Learn photography and/or cinematography. Instead of paying to be entertained, people could learn to entertain others or at least themselves. Many simple arts and crafts don't cost an arm and a leg and can provide much satisfying fun. Stop supporting the greedy, self-serving, control hungry, root-kit seeding entertainment conglomerates with your hard earned money.
......It just works? Try streaming music videos. Most sites, like Yahoo Music and MTV, require Windows.....
It's of course Microsoft's fault for not adhering to web standards and worse, subverting them. The lazy site programmers also don't have to test for compatibility and computer independence. Anything on the Internet should be open and not need a particular computer or OS in order to work correctly. Fortunately neither MS nor anyone else can control the Internet and it is to the loss of these companies you mention if their sites don't work with EVERY computer system. Google doesn't have that attitude and that may be why they are beating the crap out of those lazy bastards that can't or won't let everybody use the Internet on an equal basis.
.....There is an absolute expectation of privacy when using the phone network.......
That is at least the theory, but as my Dad used to say: "All theory is gray". Now the courts will have to decide whether is remains gray, is black or white, but no matter what the verdict, for some lawyers it is a lot of green and you and I (as rate payers) get to pay for it all. Businesses NEVER lose money, if they can pass the cost to their customers and phone companies have a captive audience.
.....While it may be true that most users expect things to just work, ask them how many times this really happens?....
It happens every single time with OSX on Macs. Take that PC monitor and Keyboard and plug them into a Mac Mini and in a few minutes you'll be doing everything the article mentioned. Music, commercial or other DVD's, iTunes, photos from your camera. Buy a copy of MS office and all your files will work with your Windows using friends. The Mini will network with Windows computers and be free from all of the malware circulating on the Internet. OSX and Linux have a common heritage. For desktop use, what is the possible advantage of Linux for a user like the article writer over a Mac? You can even boot Windows so you can play all but the most demanding 3D games.
......your basic constitutional rights......
Since when do you have a constitutional right NOT to be watched in public? Whether you like it or not, it is the PUBLIC phone network and Internet, the same as the public roads. Get used to it.
....The west is reaping what the greedy bastards have being sowing in our names for ages.....
Isn't it strange that so many people from those "poor exploited" countries, (11 million or so) such as Mexico, STILL try to get to the headquarters country of these "greedy bastards" any way they can? Maybe they want to share in the greed, since they brave rivers, deserts, walls and other obstacles in their way to get here. They brave the open seas in nutshell boats from Cuba to make it to Florida because the conditions of life are so terrible here in the land of greed and domestic spying, rather than stay in their communistic "paradise". They have paid sums of money and let themselves be locked up and die in stinking, airless shipping containers from China and other parts of Asia, in trying to get across the obstacle of the great Pacific Ocean to our shores. All go to great effort to share in our greedy and enslaved way of life and work very hard to get to live under the terrible US government!
The terrorists who for one reason or another don't enjoy our way of life, only make life more miserable where they are now, want to destroy us so that we should be as miserable and enslaved by them as they are and have made the people where they are in power.
......In any case, the extent of the violation of my privacy and my rights guaranteed by the constitution are not measured by counting snouts......
I can't understand why there are so many who get so worked up about the government knowing that you called up your mommy or grandma or anybody else for that matter. It is just a fact of life that if you use a public communications network SOMEBODY other than you and the person(s) you called is going to know about it and if need be will also know the content of your communications. Why is that any different than when you use the public roads?
Any time more than one person (you) knows a secret it is no longer such. Under the right (wrong) circumstances it can become public knowledge. Therefore it is best for everybody to order their lives and communications in such a way that they can stand up to public scrutiny. Anybody you GIVE private information to has the obligation to not pass this on to others, especially so, if the release of this information can do damage. Your financial information, for example needs to be private, not because YOU are doing something bad, but to prevent someone else from doing something bad TO you. Who and where you call is not information you have given to anybody, but is simply collected by the phone company as part of doing their business. I don't see what value it can possibly be for the government or anybody else to know that I call my mother regularly or my stockbroker and all the other calls I make. On the other hand, if law enforcement suspects that I am breaking the law, why should they not be allowed to find out who I called and when? They have for years staked out suspects houses and tailed them everywhere. What's the difference? Nobody has ever had to get a court order to put a watch on your house to find out comings and goings. So now they are watching the comings and goings of your phone calls, SO WHAT?
.....Unfortunately it doesn't work with Netscape over 4.x or with Firefox and that I know of neither of these allows any of the above to be blocked by website, they're either allow all or block all.....
Zone Alarm is a fine program, but it needs to be on each computer. Alternatively, one computer can also be set up as a router/NAT etc, but most be running at all times. Running a whole computer 27/7 just for that adds up in energy cost an maintenance expense.
We have a number of computers, both OSX and Windows on our network. We use a relatively inexpensive router/NAT/Fireawall with built in wired/wireless access and DHCP service. It can permit or deny access by type of service, time of day/week, port numbers, address, URL or keyword phrases. It uses a web interface, but is still a bit of work to set up properly. Once set up, nobody on the network can access forbidden content, regardless which computer or browser they use. It also has various logging capabilities and can be set up to e-mail these logs and intrusion alerts.
.....Mac OS X has no manual, and no messages are presented, or warnings given, suggesting you should be using a separate account for your day to day use......
That is indeed a sad security oversight on the part of Apple, which I hope they will fix in the next iteration of OSX. I have set up a good number of Macs for people and always make a normal user account that doesn't have admin privileges. Even so, the default OSX admin account doesn't automatically allow the user to do do anything he/she wants to without entering their password each time certain areas of the system need to be written to.
A standard, non-admin user account on OSX allows the normal running of every program, which unfortunately is NOT the case in Windows. Many Windows programs hail back to the single user days, when there was only one user who had total access to the computer. It was/is after all a PERSONAL computer. The UNIX heritage of OSX started right at its inception as a multi-user, networked system in academic and scientific settings. The multi-user and networking capability of Windows was added as an afterthought. This is why there are still the vestiges of single user, insecure programs that will not work properly, unless the user is granted full, unfettered access to the whole computer. This is not DIRECTLY the fault of MS, but by the fact that they allow their software developers to still get away with this laziness by giving all users full access to the computer by default. All their promises of better security in the long promised VISA will be only so much hot air, if they still allow programs to be made which will only work in an admin account. Of course if they do fix this, many, if not most existing programs will break and will need modifications. Up until now MS has always chosen backward compatibility over security, so cross your fingers, but don't hold your breath that this will change.