If an application you want to have access to that data can access it, an application running under the same or higher credentials that you don't want to have access to that data can access it. OS X and Linux/UNIX might be a little better designed then Windows, but they do not magically know what should and should not be happening.
Ever run SELinux? It isn't a matter of higher or lower credentials, but of mandatory access control lists that specify exactly what an application/process can access. In this case, a codec should be able to take an input from the player and hand an output to the player and that is it.
Most of virus and spyware infections are the users fault. Computers are meant to do what the user tells them to do, most users tell computers to do stupid things so they do them.
Bullshit. It is not a reasonable assumption for the average person to assume something they download will have complete access to do anything it wants. Ask the average person if double clicking on something called "funny_picture" can and should be able to give someone access to all the e-mail addresses they have stored. The naive assumption that people will only run programs they trust should have died many years ago, when computers became commonplace and so did malware. The only reason Windows has not been fixed to prevent this is because MS has a monopoly and does not have to react to customer demand. The only reason other OS's don't have this, is that they are designed for use in situations where malware is not a problem (OS X, desktop linux distros). Even so, both OS X and the remaining Linux distros at least have these technologies in their roadmaps for the very near future.
People want to run untrusted software. The OS should be providing them with an easy, secure, usable way to do so.
Why do people expect that codecs downloaded from arbitrary untrusted sources would be any less free of viruses, adware, etc... than any other random executables obtained off the net?
The average person assumes data they download will not be able to infect their computer. What kind of an idiot would design a computer such that it lets a random codec someone downloads run as an executable and have access to read their e-mail addresses, capture keystrokes, etc., especially in this day of malware. MS should have fixed this long ago. It looks like Apple has ported MAC from TrustedBSD and will be solving this in OS X 10.5. Maybe t is time you stopped blaming the user for making reasonable assumptions and started looking at just how badly designed most OS's are these days.
The thing that makes Macs shine and sell is the packaging and integration, not the technology.
I'd argue that the integration is technology in and of itself. What makes OS X shine is the fact that someone is willing to make decisions and put manpower behind making an ideal desktop OS. The things that users need or want get fixed so that they work, easily. Sure maybe Apple's OpenStep implementation is no better than GNUStep as far as the qaulity of the code is concerned, but people can and do use Apple's implementation because it is built in and it works with everything. I've yet to see a Linux distribution that has cloned either Apple's system services (no kparts doesn't count, I tried it and it does not do the same thing at all) or their upgrade via FireWire capability. I've used Beagle and it works, but I never did get any of the specialty filetypes I use to work in it, like photoshop files, and doing so with Spotlight was a painless download and drop in the right folder.
It is a combination of smoothly working, quality technology, integration of that technology, and central decision making to make an OS for the desktop, not the desktop, server, and cell phone, that makes OS X a nicer workstation for me.
So how far, in reality, are we from having the whole OSX either open-sourced, or cloned?
Lots of pieces of OS X have open source projects that partially provide the same functionality. The problem is putting all of them together and getting them working smoothly and getting the community to adopt them. This would be a monumental task. GNUStep, for example, provides a lot of really useful functionality, especially for novice users. There is little or no interest from any of the major Linux distros in implementing GNUStep by default. This is partially because Linux is a great server and most of the people developing Linux want to do so so that it fits that role. GNUStep and hundreds of other technologies are of very little benefit on a server, and mostly just add unneeded bloat.
While Linux on the desktop gets a lot of press, realistically, not that many people want it. Those who want an easy to use desktop, or an ideal workstation already use OS X. Many of the others want games, so they run Windows. Unless some major companies decide to bring Linux to the desktop and throw a lot of developers at a particular distribution and make decisions that will benefit desktop users at the expense of server admins, I don't see an open source OS X replacement and Linux is dropping further and further behind.
Ruby on Rails and iLife integration? The former is for 10.5 server (which most people here don't care about) and the latter was announced months ago. I submitted a link to this information four days ago, but with focus on some more important features:
OpenGL 2.1
Automatically spawning a thread for OpenGL programs that feeds the GPU, allowing those programs that are CPU bound up to two times the performance when using multi-core systems, without any more work on the part of developers.
Application signing to determine trust levels
Mandatory Access Controls, for sandboxing applications like SELinux does
It is these last two that are of real interest. Individually they are just adding more security features under the hood, which most people will never notice. In that case it is great, but nothing too new. Together, however, they could be the groundwork for just the type malware/spyware defense some security people have been hoping for for years.
Imagine a system where all unsigned code runs in a sandbox by default, without access to any files it does not create, the internet, or any important parts of the system. Realistically, people want to run software they don't trust. They will run it. Most people don't understand the idea of multiple users as a security mechanism. It does not make sense to them that you need to create a new user account to sandbox an application and it is painful from a usability standpoint.
This announcement could be the first indication of the first real, usable desktop that has the benefits of some of the most secure workstations on the planet. Who cares about RoR tools in OS X server?
I'm paying the police to do a job. If there is modern technology that, with no expansion in what is legally permitted for the police to observe or act on, will make them more effective in doing that job, I want them, in general, to have it.
You're an idiot. Cowards like you who are willing to give up privacy and rights in exchange for the hope that those they give it to will do the right thing, with no oversight are a sad combination of cowardice and stupidity. You hope this won't be abused and will make you safer, despite the fact that it has not done so in the past. just feel sorry for the others who will suffer for it.
I mean, I suppose we could prohibit police from having automobiles and semi-automatic firearms and pepper spray and bullet proof vests and handcuffs and radios, since all of those things gave them, in a sense, more "power" than they once had.
That is not the same thing at all. We're not saying police should not be able to have video cameras or guns. We're saying they should be prohibited from using them en masse without any proof or even reasonable suspicion of crime. What you're advocating is that police can make use of existing tools, in a new way. New high tech handcuffs can be worn all the time and clamp down at the touch of a button. Why not put them on everyone, then if someone breaks the law the police can push a button and disable them, without having to wrestle them to the ground. Think how much more effective the police can be. We'll all be so much safer.
I think she's mostly right. If you're migrating your OS to a chipset that enables virtualization, you bloody well better make sure code run on top of your OS can't take over and become the hypervising OS. I rather assumed that this was the case, but it seems I was mistaken. Upon reflection, I realize I have no clear idea of how the hypervisor is determined and what it takes to get code running in that mode. My laptop is running OS X with parallels using the VM technology to run Linux and Windows. I assumed that such a new, hack-like implementation would be a security concern, but now I'm thinking there really needs to be OS-level support for VMs.
Part of the issue is, I'm not sure the market will demand this level of security. It is not like users are going to choose the most secure OS, in general, so what would motivate Microsoft to put this in Windows? The other part of the equation is, in order to be wormable, or even useful, the rootkit needs to run on the existing OS. What level of permission does it need? Will running it in an existing hypervised OS stop it, or will it take control anyway? What about running it in a sandbox ala SELinux? OS X 10.5 is supposed to include both mandatory access controls and application signing. The latter should make it harder to insert this, but will the former have any affect at all?
I'm familiar with the case; it is one of many cases holding that the police of no legally enforceable specific duty to members of the public, as such, in their law enforcement, and this reasoning has been repeatedly applied equally well to what you claim is the "job" of police (investigation and evidence gathering in resposne to crime) as for what you claim is not (prevention of crime). See, for instance, Nichols v. District of Columbia, decided by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a consolidated decision with Warren v. District of Columbia. I'm not sure, exactly, what you think that adds to your argument.
So you're telling me that just because the police have no legal obligation to protect me, willingly admit they won't be there to protect me, and statistically are unlikely to be able to protect me I shouldn't consider it unreasonable for them to ask for more power under that premise when that power is highly unlikely to add to their capability, but is a huge danger to my privacy and democracy in general? How interesting. Die in a fire.
Um, no. Radar speed verification is not a search, you don't have a 4th Amendment privacy expectation in the speed of your vehicle on a public street.
The state police officers handbook for my state disagrees with you.
Why is it that so many people are now willing to hand more power to the central government under the idea that it will make them "safer." Was I the only one both awake in history class and rational enough to know I must take responsibility for my own protection. If you take nothing else away from this, remember this, if if there is an attempt to assault, beat, rob, rape or murder you the police will not be there to stop them regardless of whether or not they have cameras. There might be a cop watching, but he'll be eating a donut and commenting to his buddy about what an idiot you are and how you should have learned to fight or bought a gun.
A lot of people have been posting as if these camera's were going to change the way the law is applied, but that's just wrong. Behaviour that was legal before the cameras were installed is not suddenly going to become illegal. Just because the police have access to a camera pointing at some street, it doesn't mean that giving your girlfriend a hug upon meeting her on the corner is going to become illegal.
Our current government and society are built upon several principals. One is giving the government the minimum power necessary for the common good, to minimize the affects of when (not if, when) it becomes an oppressive state. Another, is a police force that is not strong enough to enforce the will of the minority on the majority. Breaking the law en masse as a means of changing the law is an important concept. From the boston tea party to the civil rights movement, it is how an entrenched government that was not representative of the people was forced to concede to the will of the majority.
With this in mind, do the police need this power? Does it benefit society significantly. Should police be able to view you hugging your girlfriend? What if the police officer is your wife? What if the police officer isn't your wife, but she does work for your political rival?
Next, What if during the Boston tea party or the civil rights movement the police did have the capacity to identify and jail a significant portion of society? Would surveillance cameras everywhere combined with our now enormous number of prisons have stopped progress in this country? Would African Americans still be in chains?
The camera is just another tool, like radios, computers and cars, that leverage the limited numbers of police officers that are available.
Yes, but it is being applied in a way to give more power to the central government. The question is, why do we want the central government to have more power?
Do the cops need a warrant or something to one of those "stakeouts" in which they park near your house to see you go in and out, follow you in unmarked cars, etc?
It depends upon the jurisdiction. Sometimes they need a warrant and sometimes they only have to show "reasonable suspicion." If you can reasonably suspect everyone of a crime and perform blanket surveillance, then the laws are fundamentally broken.
If the government could not do this, could a private agency do it? Or is a "Private Eye" allowed to do what is described in the first sentence at the top?
It depends upon the local laws. In some places they would run afoul of stalking or privacy laws, while in others they could do so legally. The government has numerous times used private firms to collect data about citizens when they would legally be forbidden from doing so themselves. One of the largest violators of privacy in the US is a private firm that buys up data from different companies to create profiles, which they then sell to the US government. It is run by a private citizen who has previously been arrested for smuggling cocaine from central America, something the CIA has been repeatedly been implicated in. Coincidence?
That's not the real job of police, otherwise, they'd eliminate the bulk of the uniformed force, and just have crime scene crews, community services officers, and detectives.
I agree it is not what they are doing. It is what they are supposed to be doing.
It is impossible to respond to an event occurring in time to prevent it from occurring; the very concept is self-contradictory.
Only if you assume that all crimes take place instantaneously and there is no way to foresee them. Since those are both untrue, so is your statement. If you think really hard, maybe you can come up with an example of a reported crime where it was possible for police to arrive and intervene, but they did not.
And, yes, police are generally unable to respond quickly enough to even immediately apprehend criminals after a crime; that doesn't mean that's not their "real job" and the primary reason for which professional police forces were created...
The courts disagree with you. The police are not responsible for acting to prevent crime. Read Warren Vs. District of Columbia. Just because you call the police several times over the course of a day and night to tell them you and your neighbor are being beaten and raped at knifepoint, and they tell you they are on the way, does not mean they actually have to do anything if they are too busy watching the game on TV.
...its just that it is a very hard part of their real job, which technology like this makes a lot easier.
It does does it? Then how come after installing cameras all over London crime rates have been unaffected and shown no positive effects at all?
I don't think it is at all accurate to say, as a generality, that it is illegal to radar gun everyone driving by. What precise law do you think is being broken?
It is called illegal search and seizure. The police can only legally radar a car if they have already observed it and suspect it is going over the speed limit. They cannot just radar all cars going by because it is considered a search without probable cause. All cops I know ignore this and radar everyone. The courts routinely dismiss tickets for this very reason, but the abuse does not stop.
Only if you completely ignore my answer to the question, that precedes the quote you posted.
The original post asks if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the street. You respond by saying that in order for them to intrude on your privacy on the street, they need a reason.
No, I responded by saying that they do have an expectation of privacy and then explaining why I think that. Then I go on to discussing why the government needs cause. Your reading of my post seems to have been very selective.
...but my understanding is that people are generally not considered to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.
Your understanding is flawed in that you seem to assume an expectation of privacy is either something you have or don't have in a location. This is not so ethically or legally. The government being the biggest threat to the welfare of the people is more restricted in its actions and intrusions than individuals are. In addition, the laws are supposed to be mediating conflict between citizens, not enforcing arbitrary behavior.
...there is no intrusion on privacy and there is subsequently no burden on law enforcement to show cause.
Ever hear the phrase "secure in their person?" It is from the constitution where it specifically restricts the government from intruding on the privacy of the citizens and case law to date has determined that it grants individuals the right to privacy from the government, even when they don't have any such privacy from an individual. The burden of proof is upon the government to show why this expansion of power which threatens to undermine democracy is needed, not on the individual to show why it is not, and for good reason. What is the worst that can happen if no cameras are set up? An individual is killed. What is the worst that can happen if they are installed? Our democracy is replaced by a totalitarian state.
The other issues with the cameras aside, would you hold the same position about how police need cause to watch you if it was an actual police officer standing there instead of a camera? What's the difference, in terms of privacy?
If a police officer is in a given place, I have no problem with them viewing me. I do have a problem with them, in their official capacity, recording me with a video camera at my expense. I have an even bigger problem with them constantly following me and recording me, at my expense. If you don't have a problem with that and can't see the enormous danger it presents to a free society... you need your head examined.
Where did you ever get the idea that police should not be proactive in trying to prevent crime? Apparently you want them to sit in their offices and wait for someone to call and report a robbery.
First from the courts, which ruled that as it is not their responsibility. Police cannot be held accountable for failing to act to prevent crimes, even when they are informed of the crime and tell the victim they will respond. Second, from the police officers I know, who all will tell you they don't have the numbers to respond to crimes in time to do anything. I think the statistic is they respond in something like 5% of 911 calls, in time to actually help stop the criminal activity.
I know it's de rigueur on here to think that all police are evil and should be put in jail but engage your brain.
How about you engage your brain. Police are people doing a job. They are not evil. They are, however, acting agents of the government. If you ever bothered to read about the principals of our government, you'd know that it is regarded as the most serious threat to the people and we are to be continually vigilant against it becoming too powerful or intrusive. Now always on cameras inside all government offices and police stations, freely viewable by the citizens would be in that spirit, not the other way around.
You complain that police don't do anything to prevent crime then say that all you want them to do is investigate things after a crime is committed.
I complained that they don't prevent crime? Where did you get such an idea? I made no such statement.
No it's not. In fact, that's exactly what's happening when a radar gun is used. The beam hits everything in its path but only the strongest signal is returned. It might be your car or the guy next to you but every vehicle is being hit by the radar beam.
Again, you are ignorant. It is illegal for a police officer to use a radar gun to determine the speed of every car that comes by. They are allowed to use it if they observe a car they think is speeding and thus have probably cause to investigate using their gun. Every cop I know ignores the law and radars everyone, even if they appear to be going slowly and despite the fact that the courts have ruled against them time and again. This is simply routine abuse of their authority and is by no means the only routine way those in authority abuse their power. These cameras would be abused. Cameras like these have been abused in other countries. We're supposed to be limiting their power and potential for abuse to what is necessary, not granting the carte blanche to establish an authoritarian state.
Have you told your local and state police departments about this? I'm sure they'd be happy not having to respond to any call for help you might have.
I don't have to. The chances of them showing up in time to stop a crime are tiny. They never show up in time to stop a crime. Ask any cop and he'll tell you the same damn thing, "buy a gun, get a club, get some pepper spray." Defend yourself because the police can't, it isn't their job, and the courts have ruled they don't have to.
Are these in public places? If so, there is no change in privacy...
Legally, and without any cause can the police spend taxpayer dollars following me around and videotaping me just in case I might commit a crime? No. It is not their job and it is a violation of my privacy by the government. An agent of the government acting in their official capacity does not have the same rights as everyone else. They have fewer rights and are restricted in their actions to doing their duty. The government is the single biggest threat to the people of the US and our legal system is constructed under this premise. Unless they have just cause, this is a huge danger to the safety of the US.
I don't get it. Government is supposed to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. To that extent, cameras and police officers are no different.
In theory, you're wrong. The government is supposed to protect the people from external threats, not internal ones. It is not the job of the police to protect you. No really, they don't have the manpower to even come close. They respond in time to do something to a tiny number of crimes a year. Legally they have no obligation to stop a crime, even if they say they will. The courts ruled long ago that just because you call the police several times and tell them your neighbor is being raped and beaten and then later that you are being raped and beaten and the police tell you they are on their way and this goes on for two days, they are in no way legally responsible for not bothering to show up.
Every citizen is responsible for protecting themselves. The police are there to investigate and arrest the people who have already committed crimes.
Your logic does not make sense - the government, by virtue of being considered and called a government, has rights and authority to do things that the average person is not allowed to do, by design.
Again, you're wrong. Human beings are born with certain inherent rights. Freedom of expression, for example. The government is an organization that works for the people and whose job is to act on behalf of the people as a whole. Externally, this is to protect that country from other countries. Internally, that is to resolve conflicts of rights between citizens. The government is specifically empowered for these purposes and those are the only ways in which it is supposed to act. It has no inherent rights.
I hope someday when some inner city bum tries to mug and stab you that a nearby cop will see it but then ignore it because he remembered what you said about not wanting to be monitored in public.
You're juvenile and vindictive. You wish harm on me, because you disagree with my opinion. How sad. Realistically, the chances of a cop being present in time to protect me even in the rare instance that I am the victim of violent crime is absurdly small. Ask any cop and they'll tell you the same thing. If I'm attacked by a bum, I'll live or die by my own ability to defend myself and then the cops will become involved to see if anyone needs to be punished by the courts.
I much prefer this to living in a police state such that totalitarian abuses are almost certain to occur at some point. It's called "freedom" and is accompanied by "personal responsibility." Take responsibility for yourself already.
So you are now proposing that the police, as government officers, should be prohibited from patrolling public areas?
I think the police should be restricted to their real job, investigating and collecting evidence of crimes. I have no problem with them being posted in random locations, or locations with a high concentration of people to speed response times, but realistically, the police don't respond to crimes in time to prevent them, or do so very, very rarely. Quite frankly, it is not their job to watch everyone all the time just in case someone might commit a crime and it certainly is not their job to videotape everyone. In the same way it is illegal to radar gun everyone driving by, but cops break the law and abuse our rights in that regard every day, this system would be one huge infringement on our rights. If you want to live in a nanny state, please do so elsewhere. I don't need, want, or expect the police to protect me.
...but is it reasonable to have an expectation of privacy on the street? A tourist can snap pictures all day long and that doesn't erode privacy.
It is not reasonable to expect that your actions in public will be kept private from other private citizens in a public area, as that would be taking away the rights of other citizens in order to provide you with privacy. The government, however, is not a private citizen and has no rights. It exists only to serve the people. In order to spend my tax dollars and intrude on the privacy of the people, they need to show a reasonable cause. Blanket surveillance under the assumption that you might be about to commit a criminal act does not meet those criteria.
Do people really have an expecation of privacy while in a public area?
From private individuals, no. From the government, yes.
Should I expect to be able to walk down the street with my dick hanging out of my pants screaming "FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!" at the top of my lungs and not expect any repercussions?
Sure. I don't see how that behavior is hurting anyone so go ahead. It wouldn't bother me a bit and even if it did, I don't see why the government should be involved.
Why would any hardware vondor[sic] release open source drivers? So that the competition can look at them?
Why would IBM contribute to an open source OS? So the competition can look at it? IBM is not in the business of selling OS's and by contributing to open source they get both other companies and the open source community to share the labor costs and make a better solution for both IBM and others. Likewise, hardware vendors are not in the business of selling drivers and those drivers could benefit significantly from free contributions and fixes from other companies and the open source community.
I remember someone commenting at another thread asking that firmware for hardware be open sourced too. Hardware vendors might as well then just put all their designs up on display, pack up their stuff and go home.
Apparently you've never heard of OpenFirmware which has for years and continues to power IBM supplied chipsets? Apparently you've not noticed the general trend towards EFI in recent PCs, another open firmware. No, very few companies have any significant intellectual property in their drivers, and those that do are protected by patents. The only real exceptions to this are graphics card manufacturers, whose drivers would probably make apparent all the shortcuts, work-arounds, hacks, and possible patent infringements in their code. There are reasons to keep drivers closed, but most of them are very bad ones from a consumer's perspective.
Why don't hardware vendors simply release the source to their drivers so problems like this can be squashed quickly?
Some of them probably will, but a lot of hardware vendors are reflexively secretive. Others, use the drivers to work around bugs in their products or are embarrassed of the shoddy quality of their code. I'd love the believe that the industry will start to demand open source drivers, but realistically, it is more likely that the OS developer community will have to account for untrusted hardware drivers by seriously re-architecting the way the kernel interacts with drivers.
No really, I appreciate all the work that goes into putting this together. I'm sure privately distributed cracking tools already have some of this functionality. Maybe this will get OS vendors to pay a little more attention to wireless security. Wireless is not likely to be widely exploited mechanism for a worm, but it is still something that needs more attention.
As if Apple sells enough computers that it would really matter anyway...
Hmm, Apple's US market share is about 5%. AMD's US market share is about 18%. So had Apple gone with AMD, they would be accounting for about 1/4 of AMD's sales in the PC market. That would almost certainly make Apple AMD's largest customer.
What's the deal with all the gaming news? I mean, I like to read the occasional bit on next generation consoles or a new game, but four out of the last five articles have been in the gaming section. If this keeps up I'm going to have to get rid of gaming articles entirely. Is there a huge game convention going on right now that has somehow not been an article by itself?
Slashdot Mirror
If an application you want to have access to that data can access it, an application running under the same or higher credentials that you don't want to have access to that data can access it. OS X and Linux/UNIX might be a little better designed then Windows, but they do not magically know what should and should not be happening.
Ever run SELinux? It isn't a matter of higher or lower credentials, but of mandatory access control lists that specify exactly what an application/process can access. In this case, a codec should be able to take an input from the player and hand an output to the player and that is it.
Most of virus and spyware infections are the users fault. Computers are meant to do what the user tells them to do, most users tell computers to do stupid things so they do them.
Bullshit. It is not a reasonable assumption for the average person to assume something they download will have complete access to do anything it wants. Ask the average person if double clicking on something called "funny_picture" can and should be able to give someone access to all the e-mail addresses they have stored. The naive assumption that people will only run programs they trust should have died many years ago, when computers became commonplace and so did malware. The only reason Windows has not been fixed to prevent this is because MS has a monopoly and does not have to react to customer demand. The only reason other OS's don't have this, is that they are designed for use in situations where malware is not a problem (OS X, desktop linux distros). Even so, both OS X and the remaining Linux distros at least have these technologies in their roadmaps for the very near future.
People want to run untrusted software. The OS should be providing them with an easy, secure, usable way to do so.
Why do people expect that codecs downloaded from arbitrary untrusted sources would be any less free of viruses, adware, etc... than any other random executables obtained off the net?
The average person assumes data they download will not be able to infect their computer. What kind of an idiot would design a computer such that it lets a random codec someone downloads run as an executable and have access to read their e-mail addresses, capture keystrokes, etc., especially in this day of malware. MS should have fixed this long ago. It looks like Apple has ported MAC from TrustedBSD and will be solving this in OS X 10.5. Maybe t is time you stopped blaming the user for making reasonable assumptions and started looking at just how badly designed most OS's are these days.
The thing that makes Macs shine and sell is the packaging and integration, not the technology.
I'd argue that the integration is technology in and of itself. What makes OS X shine is the fact that someone is willing to make decisions and put manpower behind making an ideal desktop OS. The things that users need or want get fixed so that they work, easily. Sure maybe Apple's OpenStep implementation is no better than GNUStep as far as the qaulity of the code is concerned, but people can and do use Apple's implementation because it is built in and it works with everything. I've yet to see a Linux distribution that has cloned either Apple's system services (no kparts doesn't count, I tried it and it does not do the same thing at all) or their upgrade via FireWire capability. I've used Beagle and it works, but I never did get any of the specialty filetypes I use to work in it, like photoshop files, and doing so with Spotlight was a painless download and drop in the right folder.
It is a combination of smoothly working, quality technology, integration of that technology, and central decision making to make an OS for the desktop, not the desktop, server, and cell phone, that makes OS X a nicer workstation for me.
So how far, in reality, are we from having the whole OSX either open-sourced, or cloned?
Lots of pieces of OS X have open source projects that partially provide the same functionality. The problem is putting all of them together and getting them working smoothly and getting the community to adopt them. This would be a monumental task. GNUStep, for example, provides a lot of really useful functionality, especially for novice users. There is little or no interest from any of the major Linux distros in implementing GNUStep by default. This is partially because Linux is a great server and most of the people developing Linux want to do so so that it fits that role. GNUStep and hundreds of other technologies are of very little benefit on a server, and mostly just add unneeded bloat.
While Linux on the desktop gets a lot of press, realistically, not that many people want it. Those who want an easy to use desktop, or an ideal workstation already use OS X. Many of the others want games, so they run Windows. Unless some major companies decide to bring Linux to the desktop and throw a lot of developers at a particular distribution and make decisions that will benefit desktop users at the expense of server admins, I don't see an open source OS X replacement and Linux is dropping further and further behind.
It is these last two that are of real interest. Individually they are just adding more security features under the hood, which most people will never notice. In that case it is great, but nothing too new. Together, however, they could be the groundwork for just the type malware/spyware defense some security people have been hoping for for years.
Imagine a system where all unsigned code runs in a sandbox by default, without access to any files it does not create, the internet, or any important parts of the system. Realistically, people want to run software they don't trust. They will run it. Most people don't understand the idea of multiple users as a security mechanism. It does not make sense to them that you need to create a new user account to sandbox an application and it is painful from a usability standpoint.
This announcement could be the first indication of the first real, usable desktop that has the benefits of some of the most secure workstations on the planet. Who cares about RoR tools in OS X server?
I'm paying the police to do a job. If there is modern technology that, with no expansion in what is legally permitted for the police to observe or act on, will make them more effective in doing that job, I want them, in general, to have it.
You're an idiot. Cowards like you who are willing to give up privacy and rights in exchange for the hope that those they give it to will do the right thing, with no oversight are a sad combination of cowardice and stupidity. You hope this won't be abused and will make you safer, despite the fact that it has not done so in the past. just feel sorry for the others who will suffer for it.
I mean, I suppose we could prohibit police from having automobiles and semi-automatic firearms and pepper spray and bullet proof vests and handcuffs and radios, since all of those things gave them, in a sense, more "power" than they once had.
That is not the same thing at all. We're not saying police should not be able to have video cameras or guns. We're saying they should be prohibited from using them en masse without any proof or even reasonable suspicion of crime. What you're advocating is that police can make use of existing tools, in a new way. New high tech handcuffs can be worn all the time and clamp down at the touch of a button. Why not put them on everyone, then if someone breaks the law the police can push a button and disable them, without having to wrestle them to the ground. Think how much more effective the police can be. We'll all be so much safer.
I think she's mostly right. If you're migrating your OS to a chipset that enables virtualization, you bloody well better make sure code run on top of your OS can't take over and become the hypervising OS. I rather assumed that this was the case, but it seems I was mistaken. Upon reflection, I realize I have no clear idea of how the hypervisor is determined and what it takes to get code running in that mode. My laptop is running OS X with parallels using the VM technology to run Linux and Windows. I assumed that such a new, hack-like implementation would be a security concern, but now I'm thinking there really needs to be OS-level support for VMs.
Part of the issue is, I'm not sure the market will demand this level of security. It is not like users are going to choose the most secure OS, in general, so what would motivate Microsoft to put this in Windows? The other part of the equation is, in order to be wormable, or even useful, the rootkit needs to run on the existing OS. What level of permission does it need? Will running it in an existing hypervised OS stop it, or will it take control anyway? What about running it in a sandbox ala SELinux? OS X 10.5 is supposed to include both mandatory access controls and application signing. The latter should make it harder to insert this, but will the former have any affect at all?
I'm familiar with the case; it is one of many cases holding that the police of no legally enforceable specific duty to members of the public, as such, in their law enforcement, and this reasoning has been repeatedly applied equally well to what you claim is the "job" of police (investigation and evidence gathering in resposne to crime) as for what you claim is not (prevention of crime). See, for instance, Nichols v. District of Columbia, decided by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a consolidated decision with Warren v. District of Columbia. I'm not sure, exactly, what you think that adds to your argument.
So you're telling me that just because the police have no legal obligation to protect me, willingly admit they won't be there to protect me, and statistically are unlikely to be able to protect me I shouldn't consider it unreasonable for them to ask for more power under that premise when that power is highly unlikely to add to their capability, but is a huge danger to my privacy and democracy in general? How interesting. Die in a fire.
Um, no. Radar speed verification is not a search, you don't have a 4th Amendment privacy expectation in the speed of your vehicle on a public street.
The state police officers handbook for my state disagrees with you.
Why is it that so many people are now willing to hand more power to the central government under the idea that it will make them "safer." Was I the only one both awake in history class and rational enough to know I must take responsibility for my own protection. If you take nothing else away from this, remember this, if if there is an attempt to assault, beat, rob, rape or murder you the police will not be there to stop them regardless of whether or not they have cameras. There might be a cop watching, but he'll be eating a donut and commenting to his buddy about what an idiot you are and how you should have learned to fight or bought a gun.
A lot of people have been posting as if these camera's were going to change the way the law is applied, but that's just wrong. Behaviour that was legal before the cameras were installed is not suddenly going to become illegal. Just because the police have access to a camera pointing at some street, it doesn't mean that giving your girlfriend a hug upon meeting her on the corner is going to become illegal.
Our current government and society are built upon several principals. One is giving the government the minimum power necessary for the common good, to minimize the affects of when (not if, when) it becomes an oppressive state. Another, is a police force that is not strong enough to enforce the will of the minority on the majority. Breaking the law en masse as a means of changing the law is an important concept. From the boston tea party to the civil rights movement, it is how an entrenched government that was not representative of the people was forced to concede to the will of the majority.
With this in mind, do the police need this power? Does it benefit society significantly. Should police be able to view you hugging your girlfriend? What if the police officer is your wife? What if the police officer isn't your wife, but she does work for your political rival?
Next, What if during the Boston tea party or the civil rights movement the police did have the capacity to identify and jail a significant portion of society? Would surveillance cameras everywhere combined with our now enormous number of prisons have stopped progress in this country? Would African Americans still be in chains?
The camera is just another tool, like radios, computers and cars, that leverage the limited numbers of police officers that are available.
Yes, but it is being applied in a way to give more power to the central government. The question is, why do we want the central government to have more power?
Do the cops need a warrant or something to one of those "stakeouts" in which they park near your house to see you go in and out, follow you in unmarked cars, etc?
It depends upon the jurisdiction. Sometimes they need a warrant and sometimes they only have to show "reasonable suspicion." If you can reasonably suspect everyone of a crime and perform blanket surveillance, then the laws are fundamentally broken.
If the government could not do this, could a private agency do it? Or is a "Private Eye" allowed to do what is described in the first sentence at the top?
It depends upon the local laws. In some places they would run afoul of stalking or privacy laws, while in others they could do so legally. The government has numerous times used private firms to collect data about citizens when they would legally be forbidden from doing so themselves. One of the largest violators of privacy in the US is a private firm that buys up data from different companies to create profiles, which they then sell to the US government. It is run by a private citizen who has previously been arrested for smuggling cocaine from central America, something the CIA has been repeatedly been implicated in. Coincidence?
That's not the real job of police, otherwise, they'd eliminate the bulk of the uniformed force, and just have crime scene crews, community services officers, and detectives.
I agree it is not what they are doing. It is what they are supposed to be doing.
It is impossible to respond to an event occurring in time to prevent it from occurring; the very concept is self-contradictory.
Only if you assume that all crimes take place instantaneously and there is no way to foresee them. Since those are both untrue, so is your statement. If you think really hard, maybe you can come up with an example of a reported crime where it was possible for police to arrive and intervene, but they did not.
And, yes, police are generally unable to respond quickly enough to even immediately apprehend criminals after a crime; that doesn't mean that's not their "real job" and the primary reason for which professional police forces were created...
The courts disagree with you. The police are not responsible for acting to prevent crime. Read Warren Vs. District of Columbia. Just because you call the police several times over the course of a day and night to tell them you and your neighbor are being beaten and raped at knifepoint, and they tell you they are on the way, does not mean they actually have to do anything if they are too busy watching the game on TV.
It does does it? Then how come after installing cameras all over London crime rates have been unaffected and shown no positive effects at all?
I don't think it is at all accurate to say, as a generality, that it is illegal to radar gun everyone driving by. What precise law do you think is being broken?
It is called illegal search and seizure. The police can only legally radar a car if they have already observed it and suspect it is going over the speed limit. They cannot just radar all cars going by because it is considered a search without probable cause. All cops I know ignore this and radar everyone. The courts routinely dismiss tickets for this very reason, but the abuse does not stop.
You realize you are begging the question, right?
Only if you completely ignore my answer to the question, that precedes the quote you posted.
The original post asks if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the street. You respond by saying that in order for them to intrude on your privacy on the street, they need a reason.
No, I responded by saying that they do have an expectation of privacy and then explaining why I think that. Then I go on to discussing why the government needs cause. Your reading of my post seems to have been very selective.
Your understanding is flawed in that you seem to assume an expectation of privacy is either something you have or don't have in a location. This is not so ethically or legally. The government being the biggest threat to the welfare of the people is more restricted in its actions and intrusions than individuals are. In addition, the laws are supposed to be mediating conflict between citizens, not enforcing arbitrary behavior.
Ever hear the phrase "secure in their person?" It is from the constitution where it specifically restricts the government from intruding on the privacy of the citizens and case law to date has determined that it grants individuals the right to privacy from the government, even when they don't have any such privacy from an individual. The burden of proof is upon the government to show why this expansion of power which threatens to undermine democracy is needed, not on the individual to show why it is not, and for good reason. What is the worst that can happen if no cameras are set up? An individual is killed. What is the worst that can happen if they are installed? Our democracy is replaced by a totalitarian state.
The other issues with the cameras aside, would you hold the same position about how police need cause to watch you if it was an actual police officer standing there instead of a camera? What's the difference, in terms of privacy?
If a police officer is in a given place, I have no problem with them viewing me. I do have a problem with them, in their official capacity, recording me with a video camera at my expense. I have an even bigger problem with them constantly following me and recording me, at my expense. If you don't have a problem with that and can't see the enormous danger it presents to a free society... you need your head examined.
Where did you ever get the idea that police should not be proactive in trying to prevent crime? Apparently you want them to sit in their offices and wait for someone to call and report a robbery.
First from the courts, which ruled that as it is not their responsibility. Police cannot be held accountable for failing to act to prevent crimes, even when they are informed of the crime and tell the victim they will respond. Second, from the police officers I know, who all will tell you they don't have the numbers to respond to crimes in time to do anything. I think the statistic is they respond in something like 5% of 911 calls, in time to actually help stop the criminal activity.
I know it's de rigueur on here to think that all police are evil and should be put in jail but engage your brain.
How about you engage your brain. Police are people doing a job. They are not evil. They are, however, acting agents of the government. If you ever bothered to read about the principals of our government, you'd know that it is regarded as the most serious threat to the people and we are to be continually vigilant against it becoming too powerful or intrusive. Now always on cameras inside all government offices and police stations, freely viewable by the citizens would be in that spirit, not the other way around.
You complain that police don't do anything to prevent crime then say that all you want them to do is investigate things after a crime is committed.
I complained that they don't prevent crime? Where did you get such an idea? I made no such statement.
No it's not. In fact, that's exactly what's happening when a radar gun is used. The beam hits everything in its path but only the strongest signal is returned. It might be your car or the guy next to you but every vehicle is being hit by the radar beam.
Again, you are ignorant. It is illegal for a police officer to use a radar gun to determine the speed of every car that comes by. They are allowed to use it if they observe a car they think is speeding and thus have probably cause to investigate using their gun. Every cop I know ignores the law and radars everyone, even if they appear to be going slowly and despite the fact that the courts have ruled against them time and again. This is simply routine abuse of their authority and is by no means the only routine way those in authority abuse their power. These cameras would be abused. Cameras like these have been abused in other countries. We're supposed to be limiting their power and potential for abuse to what is necessary, not granting the carte blanche to establish an authoritarian state.
Have you told your local and state police departments about this? I'm sure they'd be happy not having to respond to any call for help you might have.
I don't have to. The chances of them showing up in time to stop a crime are tiny. They never show up in time to stop a crime. Ask any cop and he'll tell you the same damn thing, "buy a gun, get a club, get some pepper spray." Defend yourself because the police can't, it isn't their job, and the courts have ruled they don't have to.
Are these in public places? If so, there is no change in privacy...
Legally, and without any cause can the police spend taxpayer dollars following me around and videotaping me just in case I might commit a crime? No. It is not their job and it is a violation of my privacy by the government. An agent of the government acting in their official capacity does not have the same rights as everyone else. They have fewer rights and are restricted in their actions to doing their duty. The government is the single biggest threat to the people of the US and our legal system is constructed under this premise. Unless they have just cause, this is a huge danger to the safety of the US.
I don't get it. Government is supposed to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. To that extent, cameras and police officers are no different.
In theory, you're wrong. The government is supposed to protect the people from external threats, not internal ones. It is not the job of the police to protect you. No really, they don't have the manpower to even come close. They respond in time to do something to a tiny number of crimes a year. Legally they have no obligation to stop a crime, even if they say they will. The courts ruled long ago that just because you call the police several times and tell them your neighbor is being raped and beaten and then later that you are being raped and beaten and the police tell you they are on their way and this goes on for two days, they are in no way legally responsible for not bothering to show up.
Every citizen is responsible for protecting themselves. The police are there to investigate and arrest the people who have already committed crimes.
Your logic does not make sense - the government, by virtue of being considered and called a government, has rights and authority to do things that the average person is not allowed to do, by design.
Again, you're wrong. Human beings are born with certain inherent rights. Freedom of expression, for example. The government is an organization that works for the people and whose job is to act on behalf of the people as a whole. Externally, this is to protect that country from other countries. Internally, that is to resolve conflicts of rights between citizens. The government is specifically empowered for these purposes and those are the only ways in which it is supposed to act. It has no inherent rights.
I hope someday when some inner city bum tries to mug and stab you that a nearby cop will see it but then ignore it because he remembered what you said about not wanting to be monitored in public.
You're juvenile and vindictive. You wish harm on me, because you disagree with my opinion. How sad. Realistically, the chances of a cop being present in time to protect me even in the rare instance that I am the victim of violent crime is absurdly small. Ask any cop and they'll tell you the same thing. If I'm attacked by a bum, I'll live or die by my own ability to defend myself and then the cops will become involved to see if anyone needs to be punished by the courts.
I much prefer this to living in a police state such that totalitarian abuses are almost certain to occur at some point. It's called "freedom" and is accompanied by "personal responsibility." Take responsibility for yourself already.
Or you think cops walking a beat are doing it just for exercise? Do you scream at them to turn their heads when they walk by you. Get real.
We were not discussing current police abuses, only what they should be doing.
So you are now proposing that the police, as government officers, should be prohibited from patrolling public areas?
I think the police should be restricted to their real job, investigating and collecting evidence of crimes. I have no problem with them being posted in random locations, or locations with a high concentration of people to speed response times, but realistically, the police don't respond to crimes in time to prevent them, or do so very, very rarely. Quite frankly, it is not their job to watch everyone all the time just in case someone might commit a crime and it certainly is not their job to videotape everyone. In the same way it is illegal to radar gun everyone driving by, but cops break the law and abuse our rights in that regard every day, this system would be one huge infringement on our rights. If you want to live in a nanny state, please do so elsewhere. I don't need, want, or expect the police to protect me.
It is not reasonable to expect that your actions in public will be kept private from other private citizens in a public area, as that would be taking away the rights of other citizens in order to provide you with privacy. The government, however, is not a private citizen and has no rights. It exists only to serve the people. In order to spend my tax dollars and intrude on the privacy of the people, they need to show a reasonable cause. Blanket surveillance under the assumption that you might be about to commit a criminal act does not meet those criteria.
Do people really have an expecation of privacy while in a public area?
From private individuals, no. From the government, yes.
Should I expect to be able to walk down the street with my dick hanging out of my pants screaming "FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!" at the top of my lungs and not expect any repercussions?
Sure. I don't see how that behavior is hurting anyone so go ahead. It wouldn't bother me a bit and even if it did, I don't see why the government should be involved.
If you look at his request for "non-transferrable downloads", the DRM-free flac and ogg files don't fit the bill.
He asked for "non-transferrable downloads" but he also specified that DRM was not required. Given that do you think ti is reasonable to assume:
My bet is on the second one. The first one is right out.
Why would any hardware vondor[sic] release open source drivers? So that the competition can look at them?
Why would IBM contribute to an open source OS? So the competition can look at it? IBM is not in the business of selling OS's and by contributing to open source they get both other companies and the open source community to share the labor costs and make a better solution for both IBM and others. Likewise, hardware vendors are not in the business of selling drivers and those drivers could benefit significantly from free contributions and fixes from other companies and the open source community.
I remember someone commenting at another thread asking that firmware for hardware be open sourced too. Hardware vendors might as well then just put all their designs up on display, pack up their stuff and go home.
Apparently you've never heard of OpenFirmware which has for years and continues to power IBM supplied chipsets? Apparently you've not noticed the general trend towards EFI in recent PCs, another open firmware. No, very few companies have any significant intellectual property in their drivers, and those that do are protected by patents. The only real exceptions to this are graphics card manufacturers, whose drivers would probably make apparent all the shortcuts, work-arounds, hacks, and possible patent infringements in their code. There are reasons to keep drivers closed, but most of them are very bad ones from a consumer's perspective.
Why don't hardware vendors simply release the source to their drivers so problems like this can be squashed quickly?
Some of them probably will, but a lot of hardware vendors are reflexively secretive. Others, use the drivers to work around bugs in their products or are embarrassed of the shoddy quality of their code. I'd love the believe that the industry will start to demand open source drivers, but realistically, it is more likely that the OS developer community will have to account for untrusted hardware drivers by seriously re-architecting the way the kernel interacts with drivers.
No really, I appreciate all the work that goes into putting this together. I'm sure privately distributed cracking tools already have some of this functionality. Maybe this will get OS vendors to pay a little more attention to wireless security. Wireless is not likely to be widely exploited mechanism for a worm, but it is still something that needs more attention.
As if Apple sells enough computers that it would really matter anyway...
Hmm, Apple's US market share is about 5%. AMD's US market share is about 18%. So had Apple gone with AMD, they would be accounting for about 1/4 of AMD's sales in the PC market. That would almost certainly make Apple AMD's largest customer.
What's the deal with all the gaming news? I mean, I like to read the occasional bit on next generation consoles or a new game, but four out of the last five articles have been in the gaming section. If this keeps up I'm going to have to get rid of gaming articles entirely. Is there a huge game convention going on right now that has somehow not been an article by itself?