I only agree there is "no expectation of privacy" for a car in the sense that cars are not invisible. If my car is parked outside Starbucks, then anyone on the street can see it, and it is not a breach of my privacy to say "I saw Sir Garlon's car parked at Starbucks this morning." This is perfectly reasonable.
It is one hell of a leap from there to "it's perfectly OK for the government to track someone's vehicle 24/7." Pretending that "no expectation of privacy" in the first sense is congruent with "no expectation of privacy" in the second sense is totally disingenuous. As Jules from Pulp Fiction said, that "ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same fuckin' sport!"
Boston police apparently abandoned their license-plate reading program after reporters found out they weren't using it for the stated purpose of finding stolen vehicles.
Of course, it is easier to get a crooked, ineffective police program killed when it is funded from the local budget, not windfall "homeland security" dollars in the US.
And they're a lot less expensive and a lot more powerful.
That depends on how much value you place on an hour of your time and how fast you can configure free software. For me the comparative advantage probably lies with paying someone else to get the thing working.
Countries that benefit from trade with the US will mostly either defy that decision, or claim to obey it while doing it under the table.
Sure, self-interest applies, but it is not necessarily that simple. The United States, or, rather, its corporate citizens, benefited from trade with South Africa, but they eventually sided with the divestment movement and hit South Africa where it hurt.
I don't claim it's a likely outcome, but if my government keeps behaving like a bully, there has to be some major blowback eventually.
Don't laugh. If the sleeping giant we call the UN General Assembly were to awaken and get angry, woe betide the country on whom its wrath should fall. Unlike the Security Council, there is no veto in the General Assembly, so one or a handful of countries could not stop the hammer of sanctions from coming down.
I have long thought my country (US) needs a large dose of humility in international affairs, but I would much rather it acquire that humility by gentler means than meaningful economic sanctions.
At this point, I think it's inevitable that spying will be a central issue in the 2016 Presidential election, and neither party will dare to defend the status quo. Corporate campaign donors are starting to see the economic implications, and they'll be raising a hell of a fuss by the time two more years have gone by.
And here I thought from the headline that TFA would be about a group at Microsoft in charge of *committing* digital crimes!
(That would have been funnier 15 years ago. At this point, I would say if Microsoft needed a full-time team to commit crimes, it would be only so they could catch up to the competition.)
Refusing an illegal search can still get you pepper sprayed or tased. Cops are only held to standards of legality in exceptional cases. When was the last time you heard of a police officer sent to prison for brutality? You can push your luck if you want to.
Drifting off-topic here, but getting interviews over age 35 isn't hard. Finding a hiring manager who is not a complete tool, now *that* is much harder.
Maybe Engelbart had the same problem, in his career. Compared to him, practically everyone is a tool.
When I discovered the World Wide Web c. 1994, I said "Wow, this is awesome! But it's going to suck once everyone knows about it." I wish I had been wrong.
Frankly, if Mom or Dad is at risk of forgetting to turn the stove off, she or he is probably not safe living alone. Can that elder remember his or her medications -- and not overdose? Can he or she find the way home from the corner store? I'm not saying "nursing home," but a person who can't be trusted to turn the stove off is at least a strong candidate for what we call "assisted living."
Actually, discretion can matter depending on who the adversary is. Radar can theoretically track a missile or even a bullet back to its source; a laser is not traceable in that way. If, for example, one envisions fighting another well-equipped industrialized country, that could matter considerably. Air defenses that could fire without revealing their locations would have a an edge. (Unlike in science fiction movies, lasers do not make a visible beam unless there is smoke or dust to scatter them.)
Since lasers propagate at the speed of light, there is by definition no way to know one is incoming before it hits. That's another advantage.
In order for there to be a meaningful public discussion about government surveillance, the surveillance agencies need to be able to state their position. Indeed, it is hardly possible to refute their reasons for surveillance unless they have a chance to state them.
I did a quick search to see how many children there are in the United State. The first number I found was 74 million (total of all children under 18, as of 2013).
5% of 74 million is 3.7 million. Since I doubt they are giving Ritalin to toddlers (yet), this estimated number of children with ADHD is amazing close to the number who are on a prescription.
In other words, those are probably not two independently-derived numbers. They're one. There is no independent estimate of what percentage of kids have ADHD: there's only a count of how many are on the meds. This is a classic trick from _How to Lie with Statistics_: when you don't have the number you want (how many kids actually have ADHD), use the number you have (how many are on the meds) and pretend there is no distinction.
This has the side effect of "showing" (with numbers!) that the diagnostic methods for ADHD are nearly perfect. By circular logic, QED.
"There is no other way that we know of to connect the dots."
Given that the NSA utterly failed to "connect the dots" before Sept. 11, 2001, before the shoe bombing attempt, before the underwear bombing attempt, before the Times Square bombing attempt, before Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and Ted Kaczynski and the Boston Marathon bombers, I would say the illegal methods by which trying to "connect the dots" aren't worth a damn, either. Not for their publicly-stated purpose of foreseeing a future terrorist attack.
If he's talking about "connecting the dots" *after* an attack, then it should be pretty goddamn easy to get a warrant for that investigation.
200 feet is just a tad under the distance required to decelerate from 65 mph to zero on dry pavement. In other words, the system gives gives enough advance warning so you know what you're about to gently bump into after screaming to a stop in a cloud of smoke. Or crash into, if the pavement happens to be wet.
It's not a matter of being more trusted. It's a matter of the US going to the trouble to negotiate a deal with Russia to dispose of the unneeded fissionable material. France, UK, Japan, etc. could have done it instead... if they had tried.
If TFS is correct, then the "identity theft" and anti-blackmail statutes would apply to a mugshot site as well -- if anyone wanted to prosecute them. But, increasingly, criminal law is applied selectively and rather capriciously. I would not expect the legislature or law enforcement to take action that could be construed as affirming the presumption of innocence or the rights of the accused.
Fortunately, this seems unlikely to affect you unless you already have access to Google's corporate network. TFA is about Google redesigning its own network, not (as I feared) to start providing some kind of cloud-based service to other corporations. The headline is misleading, perhaps intentionally so.
Slashdot Mirror
I only agree there is "no expectation of privacy" for a car in the sense that cars are not invisible. If my car is parked outside Starbucks, then anyone on the street can see it, and it is not a breach of my privacy to say "I saw Sir Garlon's car parked at Starbucks this morning." This is perfectly reasonable.
It is one hell of a leap from there to "it's perfectly OK for the government to track someone's vehicle 24/7." Pretending that "no expectation of privacy" in the first sense is congruent with "no expectation of privacy" in the second sense is totally disingenuous. As Jules from Pulp Fiction said, that "ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same fuckin' sport!"
Boston police apparently abandoned their license-plate reading program after reporters found out they weren't using it for the stated purpose of finding stolen vehicles.
Of course, it is easier to get a crooked, ineffective police program killed when it is funded from the local budget, not windfall "homeland security" dollars in the US.
That depends on how much value you place on an hour of your time and how fast you can configure free software. For me the comparative advantage probably lies with paying someone else to get the thing working.
TFA doesn't make any claims about privacy. That must be the opinion of the submitter, not the FSF.
Sure, self-interest applies, but it is not necessarily that simple. The United States, or, rather, its corporate citizens, benefited from trade with South Africa, but they eventually sided with the divestment movement and hit South Africa where it hurt.
I don't claim it's a likely outcome, but if my government keeps behaving like a bully, there has to be some major blowback eventually.
Don't laugh. If the sleeping giant we call the UN General Assembly were to awaken and get angry, woe betide the country on whom its wrath should fall. Unlike the Security Council, there is no veto in the General Assembly, so one or a handful of countries could not stop the hammer of sanctions from coming down.
I have long thought my country (US) needs a large dose of humility in international affairs, but I would much rather it acquire that humility by gentler means than meaningful economic sanctions.
At this point, I think it's inevitable that spying will be a central issue in the 2016 Presidential election, and neither party will dare to defend the status quo. Corporate campaign donors are starting to see the economic implications, and they'll be raising a hell of a fuss by the time two more years have gone by.
I wonder if Windows 8 was designed by parolees from Microsoft Bob.
And here I thought from the headline that TFA would be about a group at Microsoft in charge of *committing* digital crimes!
(That would have been funnier 15 years ago. At this point, I would say if Microsoft needed a full-time team to commit crimes, it would be only so they could catch up to the competition.)
I think you've articulated the fundamental problem in today's tax policies very succinctly.
Refusing an illegal search can still get you pepper sprayed or tased. Cops are only held to standards of legality in exceptional cases. When was the last time you heard of a police officer sent to prison for brutality? You can push your luck if you want to.
Drifting off-topic here, but getting interviews over age 35 isn't hard. Finding a hiring manager who is not a complete tool, now *that* is much harder.
Maybe Engelbart had the same problem, in his career. Compared to him, practically everyone is a tool.
When I discovered the World Wide Web c. 1994, I said "Wow, this is awesome! But it's going to suck once everyone knows about it." I wish I had been wrong.
Frankly, if Mom or Dad is at risk of forgetting to turn the stove off, she or he is probably not safe living alone. Can that elder remember his or her medications -- and not overdose? Can he or she find the way home from the corner store? I'm not saying "nursing home," but a person who can't be trusted to turn the stove off is at least a strong candidate for what we call "assisted living."
Actually, discretion can matter depending on who the adversary is. Radar can theoretically track a missile or even a bullet back to its source; a laser is not traceable in that way. If, for example, one envisions fighting another well-equipped industrialized country, that could matter considerably. Air defenses that could fire without revealing their locations would have a an edge. (Unlike in science fiction movies, lasers do not make a visible beam unless there is smoke or dust to scatter them.)
Since lasers propagate at the speed of light, there is by definition no way to know one is incoming before it hits. That's another advantage.
His job also requires writing things that people want to read. So, you're not really qualified.
In order for there to be a meaningful public discussion about government surveillance, the surveillance agencies need to be able to state their position. Indeed, it is hardly possible to refute their reasons for surveillance unless they have a chance to state them.
I did a quick search to see how many children there are in the United State. The first number I found was 74 million (total of all children under 18, as of 2013).
5% of 74 million is 3.7 million. Since I doubt they are giving Ritalin to toddlers (yet), this estimated number of children with ADHD is amazing close to the number who are on a prescription.
In other words, those are probably not two independently-derived numbers. They're one. There is no independent estimate of what percentage of kids have ADHD: there's only a count of how many are on the meds. This is a classic trick from _How to Lie with Statistics_: when you don't have the number you want (how many kids actually have ADHD), use the number you have (how many are on the meds) and pretend there is no distinction.
This has the side effect of "showing" (with numbers!) that the diagnostic methods for ADHD are nearly perfect. By circular logic, QED.
Given that the NSA utterly failed to "connect the dots" before Sept. 11, 2001, before the shoe bombing attempt, before the underwear bombing attempt, before the Times Square bombing attempt, before Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and Ted Kaczynski and the Boston Marathon bombers, I would say the illegal methods by which trying to "connect the dots" aren't worth a damn, either. Not for their publicly-stated purpose of foreseeing a future terrorist attack.
If he's talking about "connecting the dots" *after* an attack, then it should be pretty goddamn easy to get a warrant for that investigation.
200 feet is just a tad under the distance required to decelerate from 65 mph to zero on dry pavement. In other words, the system gives gives enough advance warning so you know what you're about to gently bump into after screaming to a stop in a cloud of smoke. Or crash into, if the pavement happens to be wet.
I'd say 10 years to mass market is optimistic.
It's not a matter of being more trusted. It's a matter of the US going to the trouble to negotiate a deal with Russia to dispose of the unneeded fissionable material. France, UK, Japan, etc. could have done it instead ... if they had tried.
If TFS is correct, then the "identity theft" and anti-blackmail statutes would apply to a mugshot site as well -- if anyone wanted to prosecute them. But, increasingly, criminal law is applied selectively and rather capriciously. I would not expect the legislature or law enforcement to take action that could be construed as affirming the presumption of innocence or the rights of the accused.
Fortunately, this seems unlikely to affect you unless you already have access to Google's corporate network. TFA is about Google redesigning its own network, not (as I feared) to start providing some kind of cloud-based service to other corporations. The headline is misleading, perhaps intentionally so.
The only secure computer is one that has never connected to a network.
Nelson Mandela?