I completely disagree. I trust nobody, and am glad that others follow suite. It's through this constant lack of trust that we found flaws in numerous technologies which allowed certain people back door access. No company should get a free pass with security. They should all have to constantly prove their worth and people should constantly be testing.
That is not to say I don't use products, but use does not imply 100% trust. It implies just enough trust to use something.
As a security professional, I disagree with your last paragraph. The people I know are not against marketing our services and solutions, nor are they against telling people why they should be aware of security. What most of us are against are the few people that attempt to gimmick our industry and trick people into thinking "they" have some new and novel solution.
Get-rich-quick scams are bad for security. Telling people you invented something new, which in reality is old hat, by twisting words is bad for security. Security professionals take security seriously, not as a gimmick.
None of them count for a number of reasons. First, none of them are from the US where the RIAA would sue them. Probably more importantly, the people you mentioned are not wealthy only because of being a DJ. They are all wealthy because of being producers, musicians, etc...
Now that said, I never stated that being a wealth DJ was impossible. I stated that I had never seen a wealthy DJ. Radio DJs can make a good living, but the DJ in question was not the same variety. The majority of people performing weddings and such DJ for fun and extra cash.
A couple sentences on a piece of paper with a signature would have sent the Thugs after the "disc jockey Disc Jockey" he hired instead of taking it himself.
I think you should check history before making such statements. The RIAA has a history of going after who will have the money to pay, not the responsible party. Perhaps the contract would have been used for the RIAA to go after both parties, but the guy with money always gets sued. Who has money here, the DJ or the business owner? Hint: I have not seen a wealth DJ ever.
Strong Biometrics are too expensive to be feasible for the majority of businesses, and depending on what you are accessing a huge privacy concern. I have forged Biometric data, and know plenty of other people who have done the same. If I can spoof systems access at a facility, I can commit a crime and leave your fingerprints at the scene.
Read TFA and she is correct with much of what she says. I only take issue with the double speak. Security is a point where a whole lot of things have to meet.
Take a word and mince up the definition, and call it something else. Security is not a thing that people can do, it's things people do to stop other people from accessing things... Sadly people pay to drink this kind of KoolAid.
weaken government and plutocrats are not weakened, they are strengthened and emboldened
Completely incorrect. As our Government has increased in size and scope so has the corruption, cronyism, and nepotism.
libertarianism is extremely naive and uneducated as to history
Lie then poison the well, what a novel and unique tactic! Not really, it's quite sad that your only arguments are irrational and illogical. In order to come to your conclusion, you are completely ignoring both facts and history. Consider how delusional you must be to have your beliefs.
Demonstrate to me where the US Government has shrunk in size as we have increased in corruption. Which departments and bureaus have shrunk in the last century exactly? How many programs have been cancelled, and positions removed from the bureaucracy? How many Federal offices, courts, departments, cabinets, embassies, or appointees have been lost over the last century?
The single answer to those questions is unanimously NONE! Every single office has grown, and more and more departments and bureaus have been added. The US Government has never shrunk in size, ever.
You could say the same for the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Mexico, etc.. etc...
You do realize that the Government has already made similar deals with Canada and Mexico, so what we see now is simple hoodwinking. Wikileaks has blown their cover too many times and people are largely fed up. If they could have kept it all secret it would have happened, so now we have to find all of the back door bullshit they are pushing through elsewhere.
The US has not been Capitalist since at least Reagan, but at least until NAFTA we could say "pseudo capitalist". More and more control, more and more wealth redistribution where the majority goes to the wealthy, Fascism at it's purest definition.
How is that Utopia working out for all of you people that keep thinking more Government will solve all our problems? (Not directed at GP, just a general audience question)
I love when people pretend to be intelligent, it's so easy to spot and demonstrate.
Me: Why can't your question work with Calculus?
You: I was a Lit major!
Me: You can't answer the question and are wrong.
You: Blah false dichotomy blah and Loans.
In no case have you even attempted to answer the question I presented 3 posts ago. In fact you have gone out of your way to avoid the question and divert the topic in an attempt to look intelligent. This post went a laughable distance.. "guaranteed loans"... almost hilarious, but way too pathetic to laugh at!
You are biased well beyond idiocy and pretty far into irrational delusion. Don't attempt to amaze me with your next lack of intellect, I can guess what it looks like.
They told you to piss off it's non of your damn business, not where the data is going or how it's being used. If you believe anything that you are told by a Government which has a proven track record of lying to the public (and not giving a shit) you are a fool.
Your speculation that it's perfectly innocent because police are busy is worth the same amount as the conspiracy speculation of the next guy. You don't know what they are doing the the data, nor do you know who the collection point is sharing data with. It could be corporations buying information for profit, MI6 and Police attempting to find criminals, it could be MI5/MI6 digging up dirt on people they dislike, or it could be a mixture of all 3.
Most of us "hope" that the intentions are good, but until the Government proves otherwise you have to expect the worst scenario as well. The overwhelming majority of people in power did not get into power because they are nice and care about rules and morality. If you had not already figured that out without me telling you, I suggest stop believing everything you are told and use your eyes and head a bit.
These agencies are not sifting through everyone's personal stuff for jollies. It's fear and intimidation, and used repeatedly as a way to silence opposition and critics. Cut their budget and see all of your personal affairs made public. Defend the person exposed, and your stuff is made public. Make the wrong deals or don't make the right promises, and media will find out who you were fooling around with, or have dick-picks exposed (not claiming that what happened to a certain politician, just an easy example). Are you foolish enough to believe that the IRS targeting certain groups of people is purely coincidence?
Congress does not know where the FBI is spending tax money? What the fuck are they doing on the tax payer dime, because their goddamn job is to know these things. Fire them all and start getting people you trust on ballots, because the career politicians funded by a select few people in the country are not doing the job.
I believe you are giving the wrong hypothetical and action. Let me put this out instead of trying to answer yours.
If a person was walking down the street in a costume and it appeared like they had a gun, what is the appropriate responses and legal actions from law enforcement?
Police can ask the person what they are doing in the area, ask them anything they want including whether or not the gun is real. Police can notify the person that they received a complaint, and even suggest that the person move along to make someone feel more comfortable. Key in on "ask", and "notify" because that is all they can do.
The person does not legally have to respond to any questions, nor do they have to provide any information. They are not committing a crime if they are in a public area. It is not illegal to exercise your 5th amendment rights, and police can not file charges against on a person exercising for their 5th amendment rights.
Being cooperative with the police is not a requirement, and if you are innocent of any criminal actions the police have no right to question you or detain you. Check the law on that one, because there have been numerous cases thrown out of court where the only crime has been not cooperating with police. There is another mass of overturned cases because cops behaved illegally and unconstitutionally.
The law as written does not claim that a person can not be in a costume, and several courts have repealed lower convictions of idiocy like the Pop-tart gun. The times when that law has been active are cases of real firearms on school property. Other laws and policies have been used to expel kids for toys.
Most liberal arts studies are not progressive once you've completed Composition 1 & 2.
Are you blinded by your ego, or just ignorant about Liberal Arts? Liberal Arts goes well beyond English Lit/Comp, just like Math goes well beyond Trig and Calculus. I had more PHY classes in College than I did Math, and I graduated with a degree in Math. That does not count 2 years of English, 1 year of History, and a semester of actual Art (oil painting techniques). Go figure...
No!. "We" are not talking about "enrichment" areas of study. You are attempting to belittle a whole series of education. I turned your question around and where are your answers? Why can't a person learn Differential Equations in the public library? The answer to that question is the same answer to your statement about learning Liberal Arts in the public library. Some people could, but that number is so small it's not measurable. Most people require peers and mentors for education.
Especially with something like Philosophy, you must be exposed to the information. Even though you can find Plato's Republic in the Library who introduces the person to the topic? Who do they ask for help when they don't understand something? These are not simple thoughts, and not something black or white.
Take your own question and ask it broadly. Why can't a person learn about programming, advanced mathematics, advanced physics, etc... at the library or taking a night class?
Take your ego away for a moment and consider what you have been paying to learn privately with no degree. How much of that learning has been progressive, and how well would you do if you didn't touch the subject for a few years and then went back? Further, if you go to work in that field and you have no degree how many inroads do you have?
The majority of education is about progression. You can't learn calculus based physics without calculus, but if you spend a few years away from calculus how well can you do in that physics class?
So the law says that the principal (or whoever) needs to go out to the person and verify that they have an actual weapon before calling the police? I thought it was the job of the police to check if the person is carrying a weapon.
Please stop with the ridiculous arguments, you are not going to be correct on this. Being in a costume is not illegal, even if the person has a toy gun. There is no probable cause for the Police to detain this person, so the Police have violated the person's rights.
Sure, you never explicitly stated that the guy should be arrested but that claim is idiotic given your repeated claim that the Principle was right and repeatedly falsely claiming that a law (which you repeated linked) supports the principle and police actions (the latter I demonstrated to be false, indicating that your premise is also false). So what you are attempting to do is nitpick something to look correct, and you and I both know that is bullshit.
If you claim the principle was correct in calling the police the _only_ obvious implication is that the person was in the wrong, not the principle.
Rifles do not make you ineffective at hand to hand combat. In fact, the US Army and Marines teach you how to make a rifle lethal in hand to hand combat.
Because the Provisions state explicitly that a Firearm must be present. There is quite a bit more by the way, but your username implies at least that you know this already.
This person has not bothered to read at least a large portion of what they keep quoting. Read the Provisions and Exceptions section of the link they keep claiming makes this a-okay. Those two areas are very clear that this is not okay.
A plastic toy does not meet any of the criteria required for it to be illegal! A Plastic toy is not a firearm, and can NOT be discharged.
Provisions
18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A) states:
It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
18 U.S.C. 922(q)(3)(A) states:
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely disagree. I trust nobody, and am glad that others follow suite. It's through this constant lack of trust that we found flaws in numerous technologies which allowed certain people back door access. No company should get a free pass with security. They should all have to constantly prove their worth and people should constantly be testing.
That is not to say I don't use products, but use does not imply 100% trust. It implies just enough trust to use something.
As a security professional, I disagree with your last paragraph. The people I know are not against marketing our services and solutions, nor are they against telling people why they should be aware of security. What most of us are against are the few people that attempt to gimmick our industry and trick people into thinking "they" have some new and novel solution.
Get-rich-quick scams are bad for security. Telling people you invented something new, which in reality is old hat, by twisting words is bad for security. Security professionals take security seriously, not as a gimmick.
None of them count for a number of reasons. First, none of them are from the US where the RIAA would sue them. Probably more importantly, the people you mentioned are not wealthy only because of being a DJ. They are all wealthy because of being producers, musicians, etc...
Now that said, I never stated that being a wealth DJ was impossible. I stated that I had never seen a wealthy DJ. Radio DJs can make a good living, but the DJ in question was not the same variety. The majority of people performing weddings and such DJ for fun and extra cash.
A couple sentences on a piece of paper with a signature would have sent the Thugs after the "disc jockey Disc Jockey" he hired instead of taking it himself.
I think you should check history before making such statements. The RIAA has a history of going after who will have the money to pay, not the responsible party. Perhaps the contract would have been used for the RIAA to go after both parties, but the guy with money always gets sued. Who has money here, the DJ or the business owner? Hint: I have not seen a wealth DJ ever.
Strong Biometrics are too expensive to be feasible for the majority of businesses, and depending on what you are accessing a huge privacy concern. I have forged Biometric data, and know plenty of other people who have done the same. If I can spoof systems access at a facility, I can commit a crime and leave your fingerprints at the scene.
Read TFA and she is correct with much of what she says. I only take issue with the double speak. Security is a point where a whole lot of things have to meet.
Take a word and mince up the definition, and call it something else. Security is not a thing that people can do, it's things people do to stop other people from accessing things... Sadly people pay to drink this kind of KoolAid.
weaken government and plutocrats are not weakened, they are strengthened and emboldened
Completely incorrect. As our Government has increased in size and scope so has the corruption, cronyism, and nepotism.
libertarianism is extremely naive and uneducated as to history
Lie then poison the well, what a novel and unique tactic! Not really, it's quite sad that your only arguments are irrational and illogical. In order to come to your conclusion, you are completely ignoring both facts and history. Consider how delusional you must be to have your beliefs.
Demonstrate to me where the US Government has shrunk in size as we have increased in corruption. Which departments and bureaus have shrunk in the last century exactly? How many programs have been cancelled, and positions removed from the bureaucracy? How many Federal offices, courts, departments, cabinets, embassies, or appointees have been lost over the last century?
The single answer to those questions is unanimously NONE! Every single office has grown, and more and more departments and bureaus have been added. The US Government has never shrunk in size, ever.
You could say the same for the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Mexico, etc.. etc...
You do realize that the Government has already made similar deals with Canada and Mexico, so what we see now is simple hoodwinking. Wikileaks has blown their cover too many times and people are largely fed up. If they could have kept it all secret it would have happened, so now we have to find all of the back door bullshit they are pushing through elsewhere.
The US has not been Capitalist since at least Reagan, but at least until NAFTA we could say "pseudo capitalist". More and more control, more and more wealth redistribution where the majority goes to the wealthy, Fascism at it's purest definition.
How is that Utopia working out for all of you people that keep thinking more Government will solve all our problems? (Not directed at GP, just a general audience question)
I love when people pretend to be intelligent, it's so easy to spot and demonstrate.
Me: Why can't your question work with Calculus?
You: I was a Lit major!
Me: You can't answer the question and are wrong.
You: Blah false dichotomy blah and Loans.
In no case have you even attempted to answer the question I presented 3 posts ago. In fact you have gone out of your way to avoid the question and divert the topic in an attempt to look intelligent. This post went a laughable distance.. "guaranteed loans"... almost hilarious, but way too pathetic to laugh at!
You are biased well beyond idiocy and pretty far into irrational delusion. Don't attempt to amaze me with your next lack of intellect, I can guess what it looks like.
They told you to piss off it's non of your damn business, not where the data is going or how it's being used. If you believe anything that you are told by a Government which has a proven track record of lying to the public (and not giving a shit) you are a fool.
Your speculation that it's perfectly innocent because police are busy is worth the same amount as the conspiracy speculation of the next guy. You don't know what they are doing the the data, nor do you know who the collection point is sharing data with. It could be corporations buying information for profit, MI6 and Police attempting to find criminals, it could be MI5/MI6 digging up dirt on people they dislike, or it could be a mixture of all 3.
Most of us "hope" that the intentions are good, but until the Government proves otherwise you have to expect the worst scenario as well. The overwhelming majority of people in power did not get into power because they are nice and care about rules and morality. If you had not already figured that out without me telling you, I suggest stop believing everything you are told and use your eyes and head a bit.
These agencies are not sifting through everyone's personal stuff for jollies. It's fear and intimidation, and used repeatedly as a way to silence opposition and critics. Cut their budget and see all of your personal affairs made public. Defend the person exposed, and your stuff is made public. Make the wrong deals or don't make the right promises, and media will find out who you were fooling around with, or have dick-picks exposed (not claiming that what happened to a certain politician, just an easy example). Are you foolish enough to believe that the IRS targeting certain groups of people is purely coincidence?
Congress does not know where the FBI is spending tax money? What the fuck are they doing on the tax payer dime, because their goddamn job is to know these things. Fire them all and start getting people you trust on ballots, because the career politicians funded by a select few people in the country are not doing the job.
So you can't answer the question and are simply wrong.
I believe you are giving the wrong hypothetical and action. Let me put this out instead of trying to answer yours.
If a person was walking down the street in a costume and it appeared like they had a gun, what is the appropriate responses and legal actions from law enforcement?
Police can ask the person what they are doing in the area, ask them anything they want including whether or not the gun is real. Police can notify the person that they received a complaint, and even suggest that the person move along to make someone feel more comfortable. Key in on "ask", and "notify" because that is all they can do.
The person does not legally have to respond to any questions, nor do they have to provide any information. They are not committing a crime if they are in a public area. It is not illegal to exercise your 5th amendment rights, and police can not file charges against on a person exercising for their 5th amendment rights.
Being cooperative with the police is not a requirement, and if you are innocent of any criminal actions the police have no right to question you or detain you. Check the law on that one, because there have been numerous cases thrown out of court where the only crime has been not cooperating with police. There is another mass of overturned cases because cops behaved illegally and unconstitutionally.
The law as written does not claim that a person can not be in a costume, and several courts have repealed lower convictions of idiocy like the Pop-tart gun. The times when that law has been active are cases of real firearms on school property. Other laws and policies have been used to expel kids for toys.
Most liberal arts studies are not progressive once you've completed Composition 1 & 2.
Are you blinded by your ego, or just ignorant about Liberal Arts? Liberal Arts goes well beyond English Lit/Comp, just like Math goes well beyond Trig and Calculus. I had more PHY classes in College than I did Math, and I graduated with a degree in Math. That does not count 2 years of English, 1 year of History, and a semester of actual Art (oil painting techniques). Go figure...
No!. "We" are not talking about "enrichment" areas of study. You are attempting to belittle a whole series of education. I turned your question around and where are your answers? Why can't a person learn Differential Equations in the public library? The answer to that question is the same answer to your statement about learning Liberal Arts in the public library. Some people could, but that number is so small it's not measurable. Most people require peers and mentors for education.
Especially with something like Philosophy, you must be exposed to the information. Even though you can find Plato's Republic in the Library who introduces the person to the topic? Who do they ask for help when they don't understand something? These are not simple thoughts, and not something black or white.
Take your own question and ask it broadly. Why can't a person learn about programming, advanced mathematics, advanced physics, etc... at the library or taking a night class?
Take your ego away for a moment and consider what you have been paying to learn privately with no degree. How much of that learning has been progressive, and how well would you do if you didn't touch the subject for a few years and then went back? Further, if you go to work in that field and you have no degree how many inroads do you have?
The majority of education is about progression. You can't learn calculus based physics without calculus, but if you spend a few years away from calculus how well can you do in that physics class?
So the law says that the principal (or whoever) needs to go out to the person and verify that they have an actual weapon before calling the police? I thought it was the job of the police to check if the person is carrying a weapon.
Please stop with the ridiculous arguments, you are not going to be correct on this. Being in a costume is not illegal, even if the person has a toy gun. There is no probable cause for the Police to detain this person, so the Police have violated the person's rights.
Sure, you never explicitly stated that the guy should be arrested but that claim is idiotic given your repeated claim that the Principle was right and repeatedly falsely claiming that a law (which you repeated linked) supports the principle and police actions (the latter I demonstrated to be false, indicating that your premise is also false). So what you are attempting to do is nitpick something to look correct, and you and I both know that is bullshit.
If you claim the principle was correct in calling the police the _only_ obvious implication is that the person was in the wrong, not the principle.
Rifles do not make you ineffective at hand to hand combat. In fact, the US Army and Marines teach you how to make a rifle lethal in hand to hand combat.
Because the Provisions state explicitly that a Firearm must be present. There is quite a bit more by the way, but your username implies at least that you know this already.
Yeah, I know, which is why he was not charged under this law (and should not have been charged at all).
Yet you keep posting the link and claiming that the arrest was justified...baffling
This person has not bothered to read at least a large portion of what they keep quoting. Read the Provisions and Exceptions section of the link they keep claiming makes this a-okay. Those two areas are very clear that this is not okay.
Reasonable principal:
Yeah. Good luck finding one of those anywhere in the US.
FTFY
A plastic toy does not meet any of the criteria required for it to be illegal! A Plastic toy is not a firearm, and can NOT be discharged.
Provisions
18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A) states:
It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
18 U.S.C. 922(q)(3)(A) states:
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.
I think that it meets the "dangerous" level as required by that statute.. assuming of course you coat it in lead and swing it like a club...