WMD in a military context is different than WMD in a civilian criminal law context. There is nothing unusual about that. This is much like there being different standards of treatment under the law of war versus criminal law. The confusion on this point has led to much heated discussion and misunderstanding.
This video is a representation of the US federal government shooting down Americans en mass without arrest, charge, trial, or conviction. The use of civilian criminal law to address this situation is problematic to say the least. Under military law, it is both legal and completely justified.
The rules are different depending on the situation: is it war, or law enforcement? Sometimes it is clearly law enforcement and criminal law. Sometimes it is clearly war and the law of war. There are some situations, mainly low level conflicts, that could be covered under either, although there can be significant trade-offs when using one versus the other. The war against al Qaida is effectively split. Outside the US it is generally being treated as law of war, inside as criminal law.
That is for purposes of criminal law, not military application. Criminal law is a superset of the military definition to make more things illegal.
If it wasn't, how about the US stop blocking the extradition for all the IRA terrorists and money men the UK have been seeking for the past 40 years?
The problem there is the same problem the US has had trying to get the military commissions underway, as well as other bits of national security related issues - judicial overreach. Judges blocked extradition of those wanted for involvement with the IRA. My impression is that many from the UK were pleased when judges in the US interfered with the prosecution of various al Qaida related terrorists in the US. I'm not so sure they would be pleased to realize the same problem occurred with the IRA. It is often less fun when the shoe is on the other foot.
This is a difference between criminal law versus military. The bombs used in Boston do not constitute WMD for military purposes. WMD in the military context are nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Criminal law in the US is a superset of that and includes explosives and incendiary devices with more than 1/4 oz. payload.
For the purposes of criminal law, both the bomb and a Hellfire missile would qualify as weapons of mass destruction. For military purposes, neither are.
Killing while waging war in accordance with the law of war does not constitute murder.
For purposes of criminal law, the bomb was legally a weapon of mass destruction. The effect of the bomb qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction for purposes of discussion.
Boston Marathon bombing 3 dead, 254 wounded. Fifteen victims suffered amputations, two of which had double amputations.
There are two contexts in which "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is used. In military usage it refers to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Criminal code usage is a superset of military definition, plus "destructive devices." Basically, explosive or incendiary devices with more than 1/4 oz payload. The charges are in-line with current criminal law practice.
I have yet to see anything leak from a print newspaper onto my computer.
If you had a classified document from a website publishing those documents, how would they guarantee that is the source for your document? Since the document is still classified even if publicly available, why do you have it on that computer?
The rule isn't that they bomb the Guardian's servers and the homes of people accessing those documents. Blocking access to the servers and warning government employees and contractors will do.
You are crossing two streams there: enemy and guilty. Guilt or innocence is a legal question. Enemy or friendly is generally a political / military question.
When an enemy in war kills someone but acts in accordance with the law of war, there is no question of guilt or innocent since there is no crime. When an enemy in war kills someone but doesn't act in accordance with the law of war, they may be guilty of a war crime. When a citizen kills at any time, they may be guilty of a crime, but unless they align with the enemy, they are not the enemy.
Citizens are not considered the enemy unless they go pretty far out of their way to earn that distinction.
Confusion over this point has led to many heated and misguided discussions.
It is unlikely to just be the Guardian, at least in the future if not now. If other sites have the stolen documents available they'll probably be blocked too.
Classified information remains classified until declassified. It may sound silly, but there are some practical reasons to do that.
I'm don't think that there is enough time, talent, money, or adequate tools for any one company to keep multiple 40,000,000 line software releases free of meaningful defects that might effect security, without breaking something else, all while they are trying to build their next version.
To be honest, I'm not really sure what to do. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
You'll be on fairly safe grounds if you write your legislators.
The admitted and demonstrated oppression of political and religious groups by the IRS must end. It is a clear and present danger to democracy with no redeeming aspect, nor even a fig leaf to hide behind.
Plus anyone really paranoid about it CAN go and check the source code to make sure for themselves. With propriety operating systems you do not have that luxury.
On a personal level, no. But many governments can, as well as some corporations.
While it is true that Microsoft is agreeing in certain cases to give access to the source code to Windows, it appears actually getting your hands on the code is sometimes harder than expected.
“The French State can't obtain certain pieces of technical information on the WIndows kernel.
Is that referring to getting the source code? I interpreted it to mean getting some additional technical information, or perhaps a clarification, on the functioning of the kernel.
The ability to build from source would seem to be a key aspect of verifying the code. I'm not sure why you think they wouldn't be able to do it. What they probably can't do is distribute the binaries for free - they still have to pay Microsoft for the distribution of software.
Also, it seems likely that by providing their code to foreign governments, Microsoft is picking up what to them is free services of what are no doubt some of the best software engineers in government looking over their code, and probably sending in the occasional bug report. What's that saying? Many eyes makes for shallow bugs? Or maybe not.
It looks like at least Australia can build the source. I doubt they got a special deal. Also, the governments receiving the source code didn't get the "recipe," they got the ingredients - that's what source code is.
The agreement will enable Australian government officials to view the source code for Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003 and CE. They can also use the code to build those versions of Windows, see Microsoft security documentation the company doesn't otherwise share, speak with Microsoft developers and perform their own tests on the code.
Stallman's position isn't a surprise. I expect him to advocate open source software over any proprietary software. He has for thirty plus years. Why would he change now? There is one thing he overlooks when he says:
'I don't think the US government should use operating systems made in China,'... 'for the same reason that most governments shouldn't use operating systems made in the US
Stallman overlooks the fact that various foreign governments already have access to the Windows source.
Microsoft Corp. announced this week it is making the programming code for its Office 2003 software suite available to government agencies around the globe, a move partly aimed at allowing them to inspect the product for flaws and security problems.
Though Microsoft usually guards such software coding tightly, the step is an extension of an initiative the company began in January 2003 giving about 60 governments access to the inner workings of the Windows operating system. This is the first time the software giant has shared the source code for Office, which includes the Word text processing, Excel spreadsheet, and PowerPoint presentation programs.
Slashdot Mirror
WMD in a military context is different than WMD in a civilian criminal law context. There is nothing unusual about that. This is much like there being different standards of treatment under the law of war versus criminal law. The confusion on this point has led to much heated discussion and misunderstanding.
This video is a representation of the US federal government shooting down Americans en mass without arrest, charge, trial, or conviction. The use of civilian criminal law to address this situation is problematic to say the least. Under military law, it is both legal and completely justified.
The rules are different depending on the situation: is it war, or law enforcement? Sometimes it is clearly law enforcement and criminal law. Sometimes it is clearly war and the law of war. There are some situations, mainly low level conflicts, that could be covered under either, although there can be significant trade-offs when using one versus the other. The war against al Qaida is effectively split. Outside the US it is generally being treated as law of war, inside as criminal law.
That is for purposes of criminal law, not military application. Criminal law is a superset of the military definition to make more things illegal.
If it wasn't, how about the US stop blocking the extradition for all the IRA terrorists and money men the UK have been seeking for the past 40 years?
The problem there is the same problem the US has had trying to get the military commissions underway, as well as other bits of national security related issues - judicial overreach. Judges blocked extradition of those wanted for involvement with the IRA. My impression is that many from the UK were pleased when judges in the US interfered with the prosecution of various al Qaida related terrorists in the US. I'm not so sure they would be pleased to realize the same problem occurred with the IRA. It is often less fun when the shoe is on the other foot.
This is a difference between criminal law versus military. The bombs used in Boston do not constitute WMD for military purposes. WMD in the military context are nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Criminal law in the US is a superset of that and includes explosives and incendiary devices with more than 1/4 oz. payload.
For the purposes of criminal law, both the bomb and a Hellfire missile would qualify as weapons of mass destruction. For military purposes, neither are.
Killing while waging war in accordance with the law of war does not constitute murder.
For purposes of criminal law, the bomb was legally a weapon of mass destruction. The effect of the bomb qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction for purposes of discussion.
Boston Marathon bombing 3 dead, 254 wounded. Fifteen victims suffered amputations, two of which had double amputations.
There are two contexts in which "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is used. In military usage it refers to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Criminal code usage is a superset of military definition, plus "destructive devices." Basically, explosive or incendiary devices with more than 1/4 oz payload. The charges are in-line with current criminal law practice.
Care to dip your toe in the water?
The Soviet Story (2008)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police
I have yet to see anything leak from a print newspaper onto my computer.
If you had a classified document from a website publishing those documents, how would they guarantee that is the source for your document? Since the document is still classified even if publicly available, why do you have it on that computer?
The rule isn't that they bomb the Guardian's servers and the homes of people accessing those documents. Blocking access to the servers and warning government employees and contractors will do.
You don't suppose that the NSA just might have more than one program targeted at different types of communication, with each having its own method?
You are crossing two streams there: enemy and guilty. Guilt or innocence is a legal question. Enemy or friendly is generally a political / military question.
When an enemy in war kills someone but acts in accordance with the law of war, there is no question of guilt or innocent since there is no crime.
When an enemy in war kills someone but doesn't act in accordance with the law of war, they may be guilty of a war crime.
When a citizen kills at any time, they may be guilty of a crime, but unless they align with the enemy, they are not the enemy.
Citizens are not considered the enemy unless they go pretty far out of their way to earn that distinction.
Confusion over this point has led to many heated and misguided discussions.
It is unlikely to just be the Guardian, at least in the future if not now. If other sites have the stolen documents available they'll probably be blocked too.
Classified information remains classified until declassified. It may sound silly, but there are some practical reasons to do that.
No surprise here, they did the same thing on the documents that Manning stole and leaked to Wikileaks. There were also stories like this:
Will reading WikiLeaks cost students jobs with the federal government?
The answer to your question is yes. Classified information remains classified until declassified.
I'm don't think that there is enough time, talent, money, or adequate tools for any one company to keep multiple 40,000,000 line software releases free of meaningful defects that might effect security, without breaking something else, all while they are trying to build their next version.
To be honest, I'm not really sure what to do. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
You'll be on fairly safe grounds if you write your legislators.
The admitted and demonstrated oppression of political and religious groups by the IRS must end. It is a clear and present danger to democracy with no redeeming aspect, nor even a fig leaf to hide behind.
Now if only they could do something about micrometeorites. Sadly I don't think this technology will help there. Still, it is a great idea.
I'm sure you'll understand if I remain agnostic on the question, Mr. Huxley.
Plus anyone really paranoid about it CAN go and check the source code to make sure for themselves. With propriety operating systems you do not have that luxury.
On a personal level, no. But many governments can, as well as some corporations.
Microsoft to Share Source Code With Governments
Apparently the Australians are allowed to compile the code. Maybe there is more than one set of terms.
While it is true that Microsoft is agreeing in certain cases to give access to the source code to Windows, it appears actually getting your hands on the code is sometimes harder than expected.
“The French State can't obtain certain pieces of technical information on the WIndows kernel.
Is that referring to getting the source code? I interpreted it to mean getting some additional technical information, or perhaps a clarification, on the functioning of the kernel.
I'm afraid you've got it wrong. At least Australia can build from source. I doubt they got a special deal.
Australia to see Windows source code
The ability to build from source would seem to be a key aspect of verifying the code. I'm not sure why you think they wouldn't be able to do it. What they probably can't do is distribute the binaries for free - they still have to pay Microsoft for the distribution of software.
Also, it seems likely that by providing their code to foreign governments, Microsoft is picking up what to them is free services of what are no doubt some of the best software engineers in government looking over their code, and probably sending in the occasional bug report. What's that saying? Many eyes makes for shallow bugs? Or maybe not.
It looks like at least Australia can build the source. I doubt they got a special deal. Also, the governments receiving the source code didn't get the "recipe," they got the ingredients - that's what source code is.
Australia to see Windows source code
The agreement will enable Australian government officials to view the source code for Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003 and CE. They can also use the code to build those versions of Windows, see Microsoft security documentation the company doesn't otherwise share, speak with Microsoft developers and perform their own tests on the code.
Stallman's position isn't a surprise. I expect him to advocate open source software over any proprietary software. He has for thirty plus years. Why would he change now? There is one thing he overlooks when he says:
'I don't think the US government should use operating systems made in China,' ... 'for the same reason that most governments shouldn't use operating systems made in the US
Stallman overlooks the fact that various foreign governments already have access to the Windows source.
Microsoft to Share Source Code With Governments
Microsoft Corp. announced this week it is making the programming code for its Office 2003 software suite available to government agencies around the globe, a move partly aimed at allowing them to inspect the product for flaws and security problems.
Though Microsoft usually guards such software coding tightly, the step is an extension of an initiative the company began in January 2003 giving about 60 governments access to the inner workings of the Windows operating system. This is the first time the software giant has shared the source code for Office, which includes the Word text processing, Excel spreadsheet, and PowerPoint presentation programs.
Microsoft Grants Governments Access to Windows
Communism has been a bloody disaster pretty much everywhere its been tried.
The Black Book of Communism
The Soviet example is instructive.
The Soviet Story (2008)
By the way -
The Americans has done 70,000,000 worldwide.
Utter nonsense.
The Black Book of Communism