Apple says they don't know how the exploit works, but that they aren't affected by it, this seems an odd statement to make (imo).
Or, could it be that the exploit doesn't affect them, and thus the two guys didn't provide them with any information on what they did with a third party hardware?
They only do it so they can support a particular hardware spec. It's the same reason why so many businesses issue an identical computer to every cubicle with the exact same software on it.
The fact is, the two guys that showed off this exploit didn't actually exploit Apple hardware but claimed they did. Apple's just saying people should look at this fact. Is Apple untouchable? Probably not. But, until somebody proves otherwise, I'd say they have the ability to truthfully say they are. As of right now, there appears to be no threat whatsoever to Macs. People can complain about arrogance all they want, but right now the arrogance appears to be well founded.
I can forgive these people for not checking their facts. I'm lazy enough myself, I can't hold it against them. But what I don't like is when people immediately point out the facts (and they did, I remember people pointing out the 3rd party hardware in droves) the reporters don't issue an immediate correction.
Heh, count me in that group (well, not to say that I'm an Intel zealot now, I just don't necessarily hate them). But you have to admit, the new intel chips are loads better than their offerings a couple years ago. Core 2 Duo Two Duplo 2 is a much better chip than the Pentium 4, even with a silly name. Although, the Quad Xeon vs. Quad G5 benchmarks I've seen weren't spectacular... Sure, there's improvement, but not as much as one might hope. Intel's killing the G4, but that chip was ancient to begin with. Anyway, when it comes down to it I'm conservatively optimistic about the Intel switch. Now if they'd get their acts together on graphics cards...
I don't particularly like U2, and I think the black and red iPod is ugly. And honestly I don't think many people are buying it. I've only ever seen them in Apple Stores as a display model. Most people I see either have an old iPod mini, a black nano, or the new vidPod. Steve Jobs likes U2 though, and U2 is relatively respected in the world. It probably helps Apple to sell a couple more iPods, but I seriously doubt U2 is a driving force behind iPod sales by any stretch of the imagination.
I have often found that people who try to argue minutae do it because they know they can't win the bigger argument.
I have often found that people who ignore the details simply don't understand any argument.
Humans are humans, and they all have rights, regardless of what nation they belong to.
So US Citizens should be subject to laws from other countries even though they live in the US? If we follow that kind of logic, it's lowest denominator time all over the world. Let's start stoning people on the streets because in country x they have the right to do that, and since we're all humans here, we're subject to how other people do things. That's a great idea. I'm no relativist, but I do think people should only be subject to the laws in which they are.
Very funny. But unless you're the judge that made the ruling, you have yet to do as I've asked.
Since you haven't explained why those amendments prohibit what the NSA has done, I'll just guess at your intentions then.
1st: I assume you're talking about "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". I've been over this. Listening to free speech does not prevent the speech from happening. Rant about the chilling effect all you want, but there's no proof this has occurred, and if it had, the *secret* wiretapping would have to become not-secret in order to have this chilling effect, wouldn't it?
4th: I assume you're talking about "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". It's a moot point because the supposedly unconstitutional actions took place outside of the country and thus inapplicable to the Bill of Rights, but here goes: Nothing was seized, and nobody was searched.
9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Uh, okay. You're just gonna have to explain how this is relevant. I see nowhere that our right to one thing is being used as an excuse to take away our right to another thing.
5th: I assume you're talking about "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Nobody's been killed in this case. You've yet to come up with anything better than a hypothetical chilling effect which would not be caused by a secret NSA program, so the liberty part is out. And nobody's lost any property as far as I know.
6th: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." If they don't find a crime, then this amendment doesn't matter to the situation.
11th: "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." I really think you have no idea what the 11th amendment means if you think it relates to anything we're talking about.
In short, did you just pull a bunch of numbers out of *your* ass?
And from the quote you listed, it seems like the ACLU is purely speculating about what has or has not happened, and sued based on a guess. I don't see how a judge can rule on what the NSA does overseas anyway.
If you really believe they will only ever listen and never pass that information on to 'interested parties', you are more naive than anyone I have ever met and our conversation MUST be finished now - the capacity to discuss requires that the two parties carry the sounds foundational assumptions, which you and I most certainly do not.
I believe that first and foremost, the government's power must be kept in check by a) a populace willing to defend its rights, and b) restricting the powers the government can ever claim.
You, however, appear to be of the opinion that 'so long as it's not obviously violating my rights right now, it must be perfectly fine."
If you're worried about the US Government supporting a dictatorship in any way, you should write to your representatives, the president, and vote them all out of office if they don't listen. You are naive to think that a dictatorship isn't already monitoring their own dissidents. But anyway, if you want to drop that particular issue, I don't have a problem with it. I do however agree with you that government should be restricted in what it does. But don't mistake my agreement on that point for agreement that the government doesn't have the right and duty to protect its citizens from foreign threats and influence, and prevent things like foreign espionage. That's why we have the NSA, and that's why they monitor foreign communications.
If listening in on a phone call were only about enforcing the law, a warrant would not be necessary, becase warrants are required only to protect our rights - that is why they are mandated by the Bill of Rights. If you can't accept even that, then again - we have little to say to each other.
A warrant is about enforcing the law. A warrant gives them permission to do just that. But the requirement for a warrant only applies on US soil, does it not? These monitored phone calls are overseas. I've repeated this so many times, but I'll do it again: this is not a case of domestic call monitoring. I have made no statements in this thread supporting domestic call monitoring.
You're contradicting your own argument. Obviously COINTELPRO was illegal under existing law - and it happened anyway, demonstrating quite clearly that the government will abuse any power it possibly can to exercise force and restrict political speech. That pretty much answers your following statement of "As for the being punished for something somebody else might not like, show me one example of this happening in the current case."
That it happened is irrelevant, that they got caught and it was stopped is the important part. Thus, the checks and balances are working rather nicely. They are there because it is inevitable that people will abuse power, and they've worked for hundreds of years. And no, that does not answer my request for proof of wrongdoing in this case. COINTELPRO was decades ago. We're talking about the present, current, non-domestic case. Most of the people working back when COINTELPRO was happening no longer work for any involved agencies, had nothing to do with it, or are dead. Learn from the past if you want, but make sure you learn that the system worked.
Restricting it to this case is not necessary. You need only look at the history of the US government's behavior to non-mainstream thought to see that I am right - the government cannot be trusted with the power to tap or control speech.
It is absolutely necessary. There are many different factors involved. For one, we are discussing, yet again, communication overseas. Also, COINTELPRO clearly showed that the system works. A few bad apples got caught. History shows us that things all work out in the end, that's it.
Again, please look up the Chilling Effect. No law must be passed for "Listening to free speech" to cause a restriction in free speech. If people believe that exercising their
If Seattle got wiped out by a volcano and everybody evacuated, I'd suggest they move the city someplace better next time too. It's pretty obvious where volcanos are located, and if one was to erupt and then go dormant, I would not suggest you build a big city on top of it again. That would be terminally stupid.
If a city got completely destroyed in California and it was obvious it would have another earthquake again at any time and do the same thing, I would suggest they move the city too. But fault lines are all over the place, and an earthquake could really happen anywhere (yes, even in New Orleans). Perhaps a better example would be to say you shouldn't build a house on a California fault line under a big mudslide area. I consider people who rebuild houses in mudslide areas just as stupid as people who want to live in the bowl again, or live on top of a dormant volcano.
Considering just how much damage was done, and how many people cleared out/died, I'd say that it's a lot more possible to move the city now than it would be to move a city that's fully populated. If San Francisco got evacuated and basically got wiped out, then yeah, I'd probably recommend that most people stay away from that area in the future. But they haven't completely evacuated (or I should say, gave a weak attempt at completely evacuating), so it makes no sense. Also, earthquake threat is a lot less serious to San Francisco than hurricane threat is to New Orleans. Nobody knows where an earthquake will strike in California. It doesn't have to be in or near San Francisco. Heck, an earthquake could strike in New Orleans. But to rebuild a city in a bowl below sea level in an area that gets a lot of hurricanes every year and got wiped out once already in an easily preventable situation is nothing short of suicidal. There's a reason why a lot of people who left aren't coming back, it doesn't take a genius to understand why.
I'm not trying to be insensitive here. I think it was tremendous human tragedy that happened in that city and it was a disgraceful response from the government. I respect those that want to hold onto their culture. I'm just sayin', if you want to hold onto it, do it in a place that's not going to get yourselves killed (again). Don't be suicidal, learn the lessons that so many people died to teach you.
Eh, I'll always support the Wii, at least on principle. I don't buy consoles, but the Wii looks like a lot more fun, and it's much cheaper. The Xbox only has the Halo games going for it, in my opinion, so it's not worth the money either.
I haven't seen a shred of proof that in this case they've acted wrongly on any information, or even acted at all. Come back when you find some.
I haven't seen any legal argument for why the government shouldn't monitor calls with foreign countries. And I think it's pretty clear that the government has broad authority when dealing with foreign powers. Read your US Constitution. And while you're reading it, tell me which three amendments were broken here, because I don't see any.
That's a very good point. If anybody's causing a chilling effect, it's CNN.com for reporting this. Curse you free press, you've eliminated my freedom of speech!
Well the USA isn't a dictatorship, and people are allowed to come and go as they please, assuming they're not restricted from doing so by a court order. So, the NSA monitoring such a phone call could only serve to enforce the law, not get you in any trouble.
As for political talk on the phone, that's not illegal. Be wary of laws that make it so. Until that happens, you don't have to worry about it. COINTELPRO was illegal under existing law. Be wary of leaders who would break the law. This strikes me as common sense.
As for the being punished for something somebody else might not like, show me one example of this happening in the current case.
As I've said, there's no restrictions being placed on speech, and I have no idea where you think the ownership of arms comes into this. Listening to free speech does not restrict free speech. Listening to free speech certainly does not restrict the free ownership of arms. Quite frankly, if you want to start an uprising, I think you'd be stupid to do it by making calls to other countries anyway. This is not a domestic surveillance case, remember?
I'm not sure I buy it. I certainly wouldn't hire a lawyer unable to come to where I am to talk to me if I was being charged with something, whether they're overseas or I am. A lawyer's kinda useless if they don't come to the courtroom, aren't they? And surely saying over the phone "Hey Mr. Lawyer-of-mine, I've been arrested and charged with crime x, and I need your help." wouldn't divulge any information that the government wouldn't be able to find out anyway through public record, right? If I wanted to discuss matters of a case, I'd want my lawyer in the same room, not in another country.
It's communication with foreign countries. It's a foreign policy/national security thing, which is fully within the scope of powers of the federal government. I'd still rather they record everything and then only get warrants on the stuff they'll actually listen to or analyze, but I'm not going to worry so much about it. We're not talking about domestic calls here, remember that.
When it comes to communication with a foreign country, I'd like to see the government monitor it. That's their job. Domestic monitoring is another matter, and not within the scope of the court ruling nor this subsequent discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
They only do it so they can support a particular hardware spec. It's the same reason why so many businesses issue an identical computer to every cubicle with the exact same software on it.
The fact is, the two guys that showed off this exploit didn't actually exploit Apple hardware but claimed they did. Apple's just saying people should look at this fact. Is Apple untouchable? Probably not. But, until somebody proves otherwise, I'd say they have the ability to truthfully say they are. As of right now, there appears to be no threat whatsoever to Macs. People can complain about arrogance all they want, but right now the arrogance appears to be well founded.
I can forgive these people for not checking their facts. I'm lazy enough myself, I can't hold it against them. But what I don't like is when people immediately point out the facts (and they did, I remember people pointing out the 3rd party hardware in droves) the reporters don't issue an immediate correction.
Heh, count me in that group (well, not to say that I'm an Intel zealot now, I just don't necessarily hate them). But you have to admit, the new intel chips are loads better than their offerings a couple years ago. Core 2 Duo Two Duplo 2 is a much better chip than the Pentium 4, even with a silly name. Although, the Quad Xeon vs. Quad G5 benchmarks I've seen weren't spectacular... Sure, there's improvement, but not as much as one might hope. Intel's killing the G4, but that chip was ancient to begin with. Anyway, when it comes down to it I'm conservatively optimistic about the Intel switch. Now if they'd get their acts together on graphics cards...
Follow up, eh?
The short version: no serious problems found, a few minor concerns will be addressed.
I don't particularly like U2, and I think the black and red iPod is ugly. And honestly I don't think many people are buying it. I've only ever seen them in Apple Stores as a display model. Most people I see either have an old iPod mini, a black nano, or the new vidPod. Steve Jobs likes U2 though, and U2 is relatively respected in the world. It probably helps Apple to sell a couple more iPods, but I seriously doubt U2 is a driving force behind iPod sales by any stretch of the imagination.
Or hey, just a virus that infects Zunes. Another Zune user walks by you on the street and now you've got a virus on yours.
I have no idea why your post got marked as flamebait. Anyway, I agree, sorta. I'm just gonna play it on a friend's console or wait for a PC release.
Very funny. But unless you're the judge that made the ruling, you have yet to do as I've asked.
... abridging the freedom of speech". I've been over this. Listening to free speech does not prevent the speech from happening. Rant about the chilling effect all you want, but there's no proof this has occurred, and if it had, the *secret* wiretapping would have to become not-secret in order to have this chilling effect, wouldn't it?
... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Nobody's been killed in this case. You've yet to come up with anything better than a hypothetical chilling effect which would not be caused by a secret NSA program, so the liberty part is out. And nobody's lost any property as far as I know.
Since you haven't explained why those amendments prohibit what the NSA has done, I'll just guess at your intentions then.
1st: I assume you're talking about "Congress shall make no law
4th: I assume you're talking about "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". It's a moot point because the supposedly unconstitutional actions took place outside of the country and thus inapplicable to the Bill of Rights, but here goes: Nothing was seized, and nobody was searched.
9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Uh, okay. You're just gonna have to explain how this is relevant. I see nowhere that our right to one thing is being used as an excuse to take away our right to another thing.
5th: I assume you're talking about "No person shall
6th: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." If they don't find a crime, then this amendment doesn't matter to the situation.
11th: "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." I really think you have no idea what the 11th amendment means if you think it relates to anything we're talking about.
In short, did you just pull a bunch of numbers out of *your* ass?
And from the quote you listed, it seems like the ACLU is purely speculating about what has or has not happened, and sued based on a guess. I don't see how a judge can rule on what the NSA does overseas anyway.
If you're worried about the US Government supporting a dictatorship in any way, you should write to your representatives, the president, and vote them all out of office if they don't listen. You are naive to think that a dictatorship isn't already monitoring their own dissidents. But anyway, if you want to drop that particular issue, I don't have a problem with it. I do however agree with you that government should be restricted in what it does. But don't mistake my agreement on that point for agreement that the government doesn't have the right and duty to protect its citizens from foreign threats and influence, and prevent things like foreign espionage. That's why we have the NSA, and that's why they monitor foreign communications.
A warrant is about enforcing the law. A warrant gives them permission to do just that. But the requirement for a warrant only applies on US soil, does it not? These monitored phone calls are overseas. I've repeated this so many times, but I'll do it again: this is not a case of domestic call monitoring. I have made no statements in this thread supporting domestic call monitoring.
That it happened is irrelevant, that they got caught and it was stopped is the important part. Thus, the checks and balances are working rather nicely. They are there because it is inevitable that people will abuse power, and they've worked for hundreds of years. And no, that does not answer my request for proof of wrongdoing in this case. COINTELPRO was decades ago. We're talking about the present, current, non-domestic case. Most of the people working back when COINTELPRO was happening no longer work for any involved agencies, had nothing to do with it, or are dead. Learn from the past if you want, but make sure you learn that the system worked.
It is absolutely necessary. There are many different factors involved. For one, we are discussing, yet again, communication overseas. Also, COINTELPRO clearly showed that the system works. A few bad apples got caught. History shows us that things all work out in the end, that's it.
If Seattle got wiped out by a volcano and everybody evacuated, I'd suggest they move the city someplace better next time too. It's pretty obvious where volcanos are located, and if one was to erupt and then go dormant, I would not suggest you build a big city on top of it again. That would be terminally stupid.
If a city got completely destroyed in California and it was obvious it would have another earthquake again at any time and do the same thing, I would suggest they move the city too. But fault lines are all over the place, and an earthquake could really happen anywhere (yes, even in New Orleans). Perhaps a better example would be to say you shouldn't build a house on a California fault line under a big mudslide area. I consider people who rebuild houses in mudslide areas just as stupid as people who want to live in the bowl again, or live on top of a dormant volcano.
Considering just how much damage was done, and how many people cleared out/died, I'd say that it's a lot more possible to move the city now than it would be to move a city that's fully populated. If San Francisco got evacuated and basically got wiped out, then yeah, I'd probably recommend that most people stay away from that area in the future. But they haven't completely evacuated (or I should say, gave a weak attempt at completely evacuating), so it makes no sense. Also, earthquake threat is a lot less serious to San Francisco than hurricane threat is to New Orleans. Nobody knows where an earthquake will strike in California. It doesn't have to be in or near San Francisco. Heck, an earthquake could strike in New Orleans. But to rebuild a city in a bowl below sea level in an area that gets a lot of hurricanes every year and got wiped out once already in an easily preventable situation is nothing short of suicidal. There's a reason why a lot of people who left aren't coming back, it doesn't take a genius to understand why.
I'm not trying to be insensitive here. I think it was tremendous human tragedy that happened in that city and it was a disgraceful response from the government. I respect those that want to hold onto their culture. I'm just sayin', if you want to hold onto it, do it in a place that's not going to get yourselves killed (again). Don't be suicidal, learn the lessons that so many people died to teach you.
Eh, I'll always support the Wii, at least on principle. I don't buy consoles, but the Wii looks like a lot more fun, and it's much cheaper. The Xbox only has the Halo games going for it, in my opinion, so it's not worth the money either.
But do you have the right to privacy in another country? Again, this is not a case of domestic call monitoring.
If you think we've taken a turn for the worse, then quit complaining about it and do something. Posting on a website for nerds doesn't count.
IF they've done something wrong.
IF they've collected information wrongly.
I haven't seen a shred of proof that in this case they've acted wrongly on any information, or even acted at all. Come back when you find some.
I haven't seen any legal argument for why the government shouldn't monitor calls with foreign countries. And I think it's pretty clear that the government has broad authority when dealing with foreign powers. Read your US Constitution. And while you're reading it, tell me which three amendments were broken here, because I don't see any.
That's a very good point. If anybody's causing a chilling effect, it's CNN.com for reporting this. Curse you free press, you've eliminated my freedom of speech!
Well the USA isn't a dictatorship, and people are allowed to come and go as they please, assuming they're not restricted from doing so by a court order. So, the NSA monitoring such a phone call could only serve to enforce the law, not get you in any trouble.
As for political talk on the phone, that's not illegal. Be wary of laws that make it so. Until that happens, you don't have to worry about it. COINTELPRO was illegal under existing law. Be wary of leaders who would break the law. This strikes me as common sense.
As for the being punished for something somebody else might not like, show me one example of this happening in the current case.
As I've said, there's no restrictions being placed on speech, and I have no idea where you think the ownership of arms comes into this. Listening to free speech does not restrict free speech. Listening to free speech certainly does not restrict the free ownership of arms. Quite frankly, if you want to start an uprising, I think you'd be stupid to do it by making calls to other countries anyway. This is not a domestic surveillance case, remember?
I'm not sure I buy it. I certainly wouldn't hire a lawyer unable to come to where I am to talk to me if I was being charged with something, whether they're overseas or I am. A lawyer's kinda useless if they don't come to the courtroom, aren't they? And surely saying over the phone "Hey Mr. Lawyer-of-mine, I've been arrested and charged with crime x, and I need your help." wouldn't divulge any information that the government wouldn't be able to find out anyway through public record, right? If I wanted to discuss matters of a case, I'd want my lawyer in the same room, not in another country.
They've had close calls before, and a Katrina-like event was predicted years in advance. It's only a matter of time before it happens again.
It's communication with foreign countries. It's a foreign policy/national security thing, which is fully within the scope of powers of the federal government. I'd still rather they record everything and then only get warrants on the stuff they'll actually listen to or analyze, but I'm not going to worry so much about it. We're not talking about domestic calls here, remember that.
When it comes to communication with a foreign country, I'd like to see the government monitor it. That's their job. Domestic monitoring is another matter, and not within the scope of the court ruling nor this subsequent discussion.