Creating exemptions is not interpretation. Interpretation is restating what has always been there. There's nothing in there about obscenity.
More pertinent to the argument is that copyright is the only exemption to the 1st amendment in the constitution. Adding more exemptions doesn't derive from any constitutional directives.
The GP's example of protecting emails is a pretty straightforward application of the principle of being secure in their papers against unreasonable search and seizure.
Similarly the constitution says nothing one way or the other about marriage for anyone. So states are free to enact any kind of marriage laws they want, as long as they don't contradict the comity clause of the constitution ("Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State").
Is a little personal responsibility too much to ask? After all, it is your browser thats kindly storing these cookies, and kindly giving them out on request. Your browser. Yours. That falls within the scope of something you can do stuff about.
That's only half right. Yes you can control who your browser gives cookies to - I use Cookie Safe Lite which is fantasticly easy to use, but keeping it working with each release of firefox is getting harder.
However, that's just the low-hanging fruit. There are lots of other methods that corporate stalkers use besides cookies, like so-called "browser fingerprinting" techniques that, when combined with your IP address, are just as problematic as cookies but donn't practically fall under the rubric of "personal responsibility."
People are not idiots, they just have their own objectives that are not very well aligned with yours.
I concluded a long time ago that really good operational security has just one fundamental objective - make doing the right (or really the desired) action the easiest action.
Crappy opsec ends up making everything hard to do with the, usually unstated, goal of making the wrong actions harder than the right actions. That usually fails because it's super hard to figure out all of the possible wrong actions ahead of time, but users will always seek the easiest possible route.
When designing a security system you'll be 100x more successful if you cater to human nature instead of trying to fight it. In this example, people want to plug in USB sticks to see what's on them happens all the time since usb sticks are the new floppy disk. So make it easy to do what they want in a safe way - give them a program to "view unknown usb drive" that disables autorun and takes any other necessary precautions like temporarily running in a read-only virutal machine.
wouldn't you think that someone that was the former head of a government security agency might know a bit about the needs of that agency and be able to start a company that can provide for those needs?
No, not particularly. Maybe a lead engineer, but not the paper-pusher at the top. He can be expected to know exactly what papers to push to convince the agency buy something though.
I can go out and buy a 3rd party box because I'm on cable, but they're hard to find info on and properly investigate, and don't seem to provide any real benefits (and no one advertises energy efficiency). And if you're on something like U-Verse of FiOS, you're pretty much screwed, best I can tell.
Tivos work fine on Fios and are energy-star certified. Just about every cableco in the US supports cablecards, I think the FCC mandated it, and Tivos are cablecard devices.
They seem wholly designed to make sure a certain amount of money is extracted from each student.
If the cost is a problem, take those classes at a community college. I went to a 4-year school, but because of a snafu (which I blame wholly on the administration) I had to take a history class at a nearby 2-year school in order to graduate on time. It was the best non-technical class I took in my entire college career (and better than most technical classes too).
The number of students was small, the teacher was fully engaged and very passionate. And from what I've heard since, that is the norm, not the exception at community colleges and they are dirt cheap too.
So, basically, you're saying that no nation on earth has the right to give its police officers the right to determine if a person is in a country illegally?
Go tell that to Mexico, where it's a felony not to show evidence of being in the country legally upon demand by any government officer.
Do you realise that you are now advocating that the US abandon its founding principles in order to be more like Mexico? You have not made a persuasive argument.
It's not like they were in the middle of implementing a new security schema when they were let go. I'm pretty sure the fail of Sony to protect customer information occurred months before this.
Unless these guys were being replaced by a "better" team then it goes to show a lax attitude towards security on Sony's part.
And never tell an IT working they are being sacked until they are already gone and passwords have been changed.
That is terrible advice, especially the "never" part.
There is a cost to treating employees that way - it promotes a pervasive culture of distrust within the company that can be extremely damaging. It tends to chase the best and brightest on to somewhere else where they feel more respected and encourages a punch-clock mentality among those who do stay.
It isn't like a unilateral policy is a guarantee against sabotage anyway - it doesn't take a whole of lot of brain-power for an off-balance IT guy to set up a dead-man's switch that will kick off a bunch of havoc unless he logs in to disarm it on a regular basis.
Far better that managers should actually manage and determine on a case by case basis if the person being terminated requires exceptional handling or not.
If that's all they've got to say about it, then what limits this to doctors and pharmacies?
Apparently regular people are limited - see free speech zones.
The comparison is valid - the SCOTUS has a four-part test that requires a free-speech zone serve a very narrow and clear purpose, generally of "protection" or "safety."
Yet a patient's very specific need for protection from having the list of their medications abused by others for profit is apparently not good enough. Such hypocrisy.
It isn't your personal and private health care information, the patient stuff is lost in the aggregation, all they want is the prescribing doctor data.
Except it is NOT lost. That was one of the major issues in the case, it was the entire reason the state banned it in the first place. That information is recoverable by cross-referencing with other databases such as credit card transactions (time/date/amount/store).
They don't care about your health information,
That's what they say but the now that the SCOTUS has ruled it legal you can be confident that there will be services which will do that cross-referencing and will sell that information for things like back-ground checks.
What we need is for someone to apply that cross-referencing to the pharmacies near where the SCOTUS justices live and then publish a list of the medications they currently take.
If you as a citizen don't wish to carry your ID, then don't be upset when they detain you for a crime and force you to jump through hoops to provide it later.
That's pretty much the definition of a bootlicker right there. With that attitude, you don't deserve to live in the land of the free.
Nearly 40% of the police officers there consider themselves to be Hispanic.
You just posted "Hispanics are some of the most racist people I've met towards other Hispanic." and now you assume that hispanic cops won't be racist towards other hispanics. Come on.
And you do realize that any cop can pull you over right now, demand to see you license, throw it in the ditch and arrest you for driving without one?
It isn't illegal to drive without a license on your person, it is illegal to drive unlicensed.
How on Earth can a foreign national be a legal resident without any sort of ID?
Are you freaking kidding? Walking down the damn street does not require an ID yet there are hundreds of reasons for a cop to stop someone doing just that.
All you've done is talk in circles around the fact that the law requires investigation of residency status in cases where it is entirely legal to not have any sort of ID.
I have to follow these laws, so does everyone else who came here. Why should people who aren't citizens in the U.S. be granted amnesty from the laws the rest of us who chose to emigrate legally have to follow?
Because the laws are arbitrary and discriminating. "It is contrary to our manhood if we obey laws repugnant to our conscience." - Gandhi.
Bingo. People that support illegal immigration just cant seem to grasp that they are supporting a system that exploits people that have no protection under the law.
Baloney. The problem is that almost all of the people who are anti-illegal immigration have no intention of improving the lives of those immigrants. They come here willingly. They know the score and they still come because life where they come from is even worse.
Unless they support amnesty for all, which is essentially "open borders," the people who are anti-illegal immigration are at best just as supportive of abuse and suffering as the people who are pro-illegal immigration.
Only after they are detained for some other reason can they ask for immigration status.
So what? The problem is that AZ still requires the police to determine the immigration status of a person by doing little more than looking at them. That it only happens in the context of some other event doesn't make it any more reasonable.
Anyway how is this any different than anyone else getting stopped by the police and being asked for identification such as a drivers license?
Well, that's illegal. The cops have no legal grounds to demand ID of anyone unless they have reason to suspect wrong-doing. At best they an ask for a person's name, but they can't demand ID.
Slashdot Mirror
Creating exemptions is not interpretation. Interpretation is restating what has always been there. There's nothing in there about obscenity.
More pertinent to the argument is that copyright is the only exemption to the 1st amendment in the constitution. Adding more exemptions doesn't derive from any constitutional directives.
The GP's example of protecting emails is a pretty straightforward application of the principle of being secure in their papers against unreasonable search and seizure.
Similarly the constitution says nothing one way or the other about marriage for anyone. So states are free to enact any kind of marriage laws they want, as long as they don't contradict the comity clause of the constitution ("Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State").
By that reasoning, computers are a niche compared to the sale of trillions of cigarettes that are sold every single year.
Yea, because just like computers are an integral part of every pro a/v studio so are cigarettes an integral part of every computer. .derp.
Is a little personal responsibility too much to ask? After all, it is your browser thats kindly storing these cookies, and kindly giving them out on request. Your browser. Yours. That falls within the scope of something you can do stuff about.
That's only half right. Yes you can control who your browser gives cookies to - I use Cookie Safe Lite which is fantasticly easy to use, but keeping it working with each release of firefox is getting harder.
However, that's just the low-hanging fruit. There are lots of other methods that corporate stalkers use besides cookies, like so-called "browser fingerprinting" techniques that, when combined with your IP address, are just as problematic as cookies but donn't practically fall under the rubric of "personal responsibility."
People are not idiots, they just have their own objectives that are not very well aligned with yours.
I concluded a long time ago that really good operational security has just one fundamental objective - make doing the right (or really the desired) action the easiest action.
Crappy opsec ends up making everything hard to do with the, usually unstated, goal of making the wrong actions harder than the right actions. That usually fails because it's super hard to figure out all of the possible wrong actions ahead of time, but users will always seek the easiest possible route.
When designing a security system you'll be 100x more successful if you cater to human nature instead of trying to fight it. In this example, people want to plug in USB sticks to see what's on them happens all the time since usb sticks are the new floppy disk. So make it easy to do what they want in a safe way - give them a program to "view unknown usb drive" that disables autorun and takes any other necessary precautions like temporarily running in a read-only virutal machine.
wouldn't you think that someone that was the former head of a government security agency might know a bit about the needs of that agency and be able to start a company that can provide for those needs?
No, not particularly. Maybe a lead engineer, but not the paper-pusher at the top. He can be expected to know exactly what papers to push to convince the agency buy something though.
That's true. I never bothered with either pay-per-view so I never noticed.
I can go out and buy a 3rd party box because I'm on cable, but they're hard to find info on and properly investigate, and don't seem to provide any real benefits (and no one advertises energy efficiency). And if you're on something like U-Verse of FiOS, you're pretty much screwed, best I can tell.
Tivos work fine on Fios and are energy-star certified. Just about every cableco in the US supports cablecards, I think the FCC mandated it, and Tivos are cablecard devices.
Is there *anything* good that can happen to an ecosystem?
Gradual change.
They seem wholly designed to make sure a certain amount of money is extracted from each student.
If the cost is a problem, take those classes at a community college. I went to a 4-year school, but because of a snafu (which I blame wholly on the administration) I had to take a history class at a nearby 2-year school in order to graduate on time. It was the best non-technical class I took in my entire college career (and better than most technical classes too).
The number of students was small, the teacher was fully engaged and very passionate. And from what I've heard since, that is the norm, not the exception at community colleges and they are dirt cheap too.
Well, that's nice and all but isn't even a shadow of a rebuttal to the post you were responding to.
So, basically, you're saying that no nation on earth has the right to give its police officers the right to determine if a person is in a country illegally?
Go tell that to Mexico, where it's a felony not to show evidence of being in the country legally upon demand by any government officer.
Do you realise that you are now advocating that the US abandon its founding principles in order to be more like Mexico? You have not made a persuasive argument.
It's not like they were in the middle of implementing a new security schema when they were let go. I'm pretty sure the fail of Sony to protect customer information occurred months before this.
Unless these guys were being replaced by a "better" team then it goes to show a lax attitude towards security on Sony's part.
And never tell an IT working they are being sacked until they are already gone and passwords have been changed.
That is terrible advice, especially the "never" part.
There is a cost to treating employees that way - it promotes a pervasive culture of distrust within the company that can be extremely damaging. It tends to chase the best and brightest on to somewhere else where they feel more respected and encourages a punch-clock mentality among those who do stay.
It isn't like a unilateral policy is a guarantee against sabotage anyway - it doesn't take a whole of lot of brain-power for an off-balance IT guy to set up a dead-man's switch that will kick off a bunch of havoc unless he logs in to disarm it on a regular basis.
Far better that managers should actually manage and determine on a case by case basis if the person being terminated requires exceptional handling or not.
If that's all they've got to say about it, then what limits this to doctors and pharmacies?
Apparently regular people are limited - see free speech zones.
The comparison is valid - the SCOTUS has a four-part test that requires a free-speech zone serve a very narrow and clear purpose, generally of "protection" or "safety."
Yet a patient's very specific need for protection from having the list of their medications abused by others for profit is apparently not good enough. Such hypocrisy.
It isn't your personal and private health care information, the patient stuff is lost in the aggregation, all they want is the prescribing doctor data.
Except it is NOT lost. That was one of the major issues in the case, it was the entire reason the state banned it in the first place. That information is recoverable by cross-referencing with other databases such as credit card transactions (time/date/amount/store).
They don't care about your health information,
That's what they say but the now that the SCOTUS has ruled it legal you can be confident that there will be services which will do that cross-referencing and will sell that information for things like back-ground checks.
What we need is for someone to apply that cross-referencing to the pharmacies near where the SCOTUS justices live and then publish a list of the medications they currently take.
Saying something doesn't make it true. The law requires probable cause, not just "looking at someone".
Wooosh!
"Looking at somone" is the means not the cause.
I can't believe how many closet fascists have come out in support of this thing. The illegal immigration hysteria is amazingly powerful.
If you as a citizen don't wish to carry your ID, then don't be upset when they detain you for a crime and force you to jump through hoops to provide it later.
That's pretty much the definition of a bootlicker right there. With that attitude, you don't deserve to live in the land of the free.
Nearly 40% of the police officers there consider themselves to be Hispanic.
You just posted "Hispanics are some of the most racist people I've met towards other Hispanic." and now you assume that hispanic cops won't be racist towards other hispanics. Come on.
And you do realize that any cop can pull you over right now, demand to see you license, throw it in the ditch and arrest you for driving without one?
It isn't illegal to drive without a license on your person, it is illegal to drive unlicensed.
How on Earth can a foreign national be a legal resident without any sort of ID?
Are you freaking kidding? Walking down the damn street does not require an ID yet there are hundreds of reasons for a cop to stop someone doing just that.
All you've done is talk in circles around the fact that the law requires investigation of residency status in cases where it is entirely legal to not have any sort of ID.
Have you read the law? you cannot enforce it based on race it has to be suspicion such as not having legal identification.
So. you and all of the other AC's have decided that American is now the country of "Papers Please!"
You cowards. Go move to north korea. In America, land of the free, we don't need no stinkin papers.
So you have agreed it's reasonable for police to ask for a driver's license for some kind of traffic violation (wrongdoing), right?
Why do you think that this law only applies to traffic violations?
I have to follow these laws, so does everyone else who came here. Why should people who aren't citizens in the U.S. be granted amnesty from the laws the rest of us who chose to emigrate legally have to follow?
Because the laws are arbitrary and discriminating.
"It is contrary to our manhood if we obey laws repugnant to our conscience." - Gandhi.
Bingo. People that support illegal immigration just cant seem to grasp that they are supporting a system that exploits people that have no protection under the law.
Baloney. The problem is that almost all of the people who are anti-illegal immigration have no intention of improving the lives of those immigrants. They come here willingly. They know the score and they still come because life where they come from is even worse.
Unless they support amnesty for all, which is essentially "open borders," the people who are anti-illegal immigration are at best just as supportive of abuse and suffering as the people who are pro-illegal immigration.
Only after they are detained for some other reason can they ask for immigration status.
So what? The problem is that AZ still requires the police to determine the immigration status of a person by doing little more than looking at them. That it only happens in the context of some other event doesn't make it any more reasonable.
Anyway how is this any different than anyone else getting stopped by the police and being asked for identification such as a drivers license?
Well, that's illegal. The cops have no legal grounds to demand ID of anyone unless they have reason to suspect wrong-doing. At best they an ask for a person's name, but they can't demand ID.