I have walked around my local town and I have only seen 4 cameras. They are not as prolific as you seem to think that they are. Perhaps there are areas of major cities where they are on almost every street corner, but not where I live.
Secondly, do you imagine that these cameras are sending personally identifiable information to third parties? I don't. The cameras are used by the police for crime detection, prevention and/or deterrence. I support their use because when my parents visit the cities where they are more commonly deployed they do not feel as vulnerable as they did. They obviously work because most foreigners who haven't been here believe that they are all over the place and, therefore, they don't bother visiting. Unfortunately this also discourages those that we would welcome as well as those that we wish to deter but, hey, its better than nothing.
Others have pointed out that the US has been fighting piracy here for several years, as have the UK and other NATO nations. But they have been doing so as national assets - not as NATO assets. So, NATO declining to be involved is not the same as NATO members refusing to play a role, they are just not doing it under the NATO umbrella because it is not NATO's responsibility.
That's not all. In prison, other things can get close to your mouth and nose you wouldn't want. That's why it's prison.
And do you think that it is acceptable? The punishment of prison is to remove a person's liberty, not to have them subjected to sexual and/or physical assualt while turning a blind eye. Don't you think that, as a nation, you ought to be protecting individuals who are on the receiving end of such treatment or are you going to advocate torture, gladiatorial contests and being thrown to the lions as acceptable punishments?
I am continually astounded that an advanced nation can condone such barbaric behaviour and then be affronted when other nations do not choose to follow the 'American' way. You know, things like 'If you are not with us, then you are against us....'. This behaviour actually makes terrorists look civilised.
From TFA - the purpose os the 3 strike rule is to curb piracy. Are you suggesting that this law is already being used for an entirely different purpose?
Because you can't be sent to prison without some kind of judicial process, usually requiring evidence and such like. That wasn't the case with the French law. If you were identified (by whom? with what level of proof? what about facing your accusers?) to be downloading copyrighted material you would be warned twice and the third time be disconnected. Ubuntu is copyrighted material - can I no longer download it using a torrent? I distribute photographs that I have taken via torrents. They are copyrighted material - I own the copyright! Should my family be forbidden to download them because they contravene this proposed law?
How would anyone know that I was downloading copyrighted material. It is illegal for ISPs or any other organisation to monitor communications without judicial consent and oversight. It might not be the case in the US, but it is still the law in all EU countries (admittedly, there are a few who are now bending this law to suit themselves but that doesn't change the fact that they ought not to be doing so).
And which is quicker to type? Do you really think that everybody - even all geeks - writes everything in HTML? You understood that it was a quote, so communication was achieved.
Of course I have, and they are all perfectly able to call me on my landline. Why would I want to talk while driving to or from work, or in the theatre, or anywhere else for that matter?
You seriously don't own a cell phone? On purpose? I mean
No, what on earth would I want a cell phone for? I have a landline telephone that gives me very cheap phone calls throughout N America, Europe and elsewhere. Such a deal is not offered by any cell phone that I know of. When I am traveling, I do not want work colleagues calling me up - I work at work and the rest of my time is my own. You might be surprised, but life can go on even without your favourite cell phone being in your pocket.
Er, I understand the point you're trying to make, but didn't France set of nuclear weapons on French territory just as the US has set of nuclear weapons on its territory? And if you want to argue that France has no real claim to territory in the Pacific, I would welcome your explanation reference a certain part of Cuba that the US lays claim to.
I cannot believe this. You are claiming that if you had downloaded the full game and decided that you liked it, then you (and others) would go out and buy the same game again simply for the pleasure of giving the makers your money? There might be a handful (perhaps one or two only) who would do this but I simply cannot accept that most of those who illegally download software will go out and make a donation (of the full sales price) to the originator if they find that they like it. It might be different for a demo, but if you already have the full game I will argue it never happens.
This is simply a claim to make those who download illegally feel justified about their actions. Its sort of 'I would have paid for each of these 100 games if I had found that I liked them - but of course I didn't like any of them that much.' If you don't like the games - stop downloading them.
Thank you, but I understood that the flow of the coolant is dependant on forward motion or are you suggesting that the flow is maintained by convection alone?
If there is forward motion then the must be a drive train to propel it. If modern nuclear subs are quieter than a conventional sub running on batteries then we have certainly made great strides over the last decade or so.
Again, thank you for the update.
Diesel submarines quieter then nuclear powered ones ? You were being serious ?
Well, you have just shown how little you know. Diesel submarines underwater are running on battery power. The only noise is from their propulsion system which can even be stopped i.e. no noise. The nuclear sub must keep cooling pumps and other machinery active even if not moving - it can never be completely quiet. While nuclear subs usually have a greater firepower it is diesels that can cause the most problems to someone trying to find them. Yes, they are noisy on the surface when recharging but that isn't the usual operating profile when you are about to attack someone.
All modern submarines are quieter than their predecessors but you will ignore the threat posed by diesels at your peril. We haven't lost the knack, it has always been the same problem.
there are very few countries in the world that tolerate that sorta thing
It depends on what you mean by 'sorta thing'. If you mean fully clothed children posing for a camera seen on the kind of site that has been frequently banned in the US then many other countries do NOT have a problem with that. The problem is with the individuals who get some kind of sexual pleasure from those sites and, even then, if they don't actually do anything then what crime has been committed? The problems with this type of filter is who gets to choose what is kiddie porn and what is not? We might have different but equally valid views both of which comply with the laws of the country under which we live. But having another country tell us we have to change because 'they' don't approve doesn't usually go down well with us. Take for example the cartoons that so offended the Muslim community. Why should my country - which is Christian and considerably more tolerant than many others - be dictated to because what we believe to be acceptable is not the same as their belief?
I think that if a country tries to tell other countries how they should behave then they ought to mind their own business. By all means open a channel of discourse and debate but I don't believe that one country has more right than another to decide what is acceptable and what is not.
Why on earth should they ask if people want to copy a file from a friend? Do you believe that you have some inherent right to do such a thing? I'm not getting into the theft/piracy debate but, if you haven't paid for it, then I don't see that you have any 'right' to have a copy of it. Now, if you had paid for it but it wouldn't let you play it on your computer then I would be standing right next to you and supporting you with all my might, but that does not appear to be what you are complaining about.
And the reason that we don't do that anymore is that the world has progressed and found a better way of doing things. What you are suggesting is a retrograde step, IMHO.
Just try it, I promise that passing policemen will not stop and ticket you.
That might be true in your country, but in many others it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the pavement (sidewalk). You MUST ride on the road. The pavement is reserved for pedestrians. A bicycle is a vehicle just like any other. That's what the road is for - it's just common courtesy! Mind you, if more car drivers were a little more considerate of other road users then there wouldn't be this problem.
Same here (N Europe), I spent yesterday checking my mail server because I had not received any spam for 5 days. Usually, one or 2 will get through the filters but it had been quiet since before the weekend. NO SPAM at all is even arriving at my server. I am reluctant to attribute it to the bust, but I have nothing else to offer that will account for it.
Why not? They can simply record the data going into the microphone to be examined later. What would the difference be between "merely" storing every email sent and "merely" recording every conversation?
Because an email already contains information to identify the sender - or 'speaker' - of the information. There is little to no administrative overhead to managing the data. With a microphone, someone will have to associate the stream of sound at a specific time and place with an individual, and then annotate that item of speech data with metadata to enable it to be found during later searches. This requires impossibly huge amounts of manpower for an all-encompassing surveillance system. You might be able to do it for a small number of individuals if you follow them around and know which microphone to use at any given instance, but it will be impossible for a larger system to know which voices each microphone is currently recording. How the hell would the staff of a pizza restaurant know who is sitting at each table by name? Even if you were stupid enough to use a credit card to pay - which would give them some personally identifying information - it does nothing to help identify the person that you were talking to.
Unfortunately, in the UK they already have the power to demand that you hand over your encryption keys. The solution is not just encryption, but genuine random data sent between your encrypted emails. When they demand your keys simply, and legally, show them that it is random data. The system will not be able to cope with masses of data that _they_ will still believe is encrypted but for which no keys can be produced. Perhaps they will make an example of a few by taking them to court. Well, let's see what happens when it gets bounced to the European Court of Human Rights. The crime has not been committed unless it can be _proven_ to be committed.
When they (eventually) find some way of closing this loophole, then you start sending binary dumps of data. It is not encrypted but, to all intents and purposes, it is meaningless to anyone looking at it in transit. Will they then make sending binary data illegal? Can you imagine the economic and industrial fallout of such a law?
To those that think that this is pointless, I disagree. The first thing that will be apparent is the degree to which this monitoring is actually being conducted. No, not the hype that every email will be kept and read, but what can they _actually_ do with that much data? How many people will actually get a visit from the police? (My guess is none.) What I think will be apparent is that they will have a database that, once a suspect is identified, can be examined to find possible additional evidence. But they are not going to be reading everyone's emails everyday. That doesn't make the system any more acceptable but it will show that they are not going anywhere near the 'microphone in very home, restaurant etc' claim that someone posted earlier.
Then one has to think of all the data that they don't want. Spam, technical updates, forum summaries, OS binaries etc. Perhaps they will discover the ultimate filter for spam or, gasp, get tough on those that generate it - Heaven forbid that something useful might come from this ridiculous law. But, until that time, I sure there is someone bright enough on this forum to devise a piece of software that can hide a message inside something that appears to be spam, a technical update, or a forum summary. Flood the system so that the demands of storing and analysing this entirely innocent and legal data simply make the whole thing unworkable.
For the 'websites visited' database, that is even easier to flood. Google for a random word, and then have software visit every alternate link on that page, one every second, and simply discard the data. Hey, my broadband is already paid for, it will not affect my data downloading in the slightest. But the database that they have to hold is getting much bigger than they might first have imagined that it would. Out of all the sites that I might visit in 24hours (86400) they have to discover if one of them is actually a front for something more sinister. Before you howl about how one might download something that you wouldn't want to see anyway (pornography, terrorist website or whatever) my answer is that you might already stumble upon such a site anyway. The fact that you did no more that go to a Google link is not yet a criminal offence, and if they want to make it one then much of the internet advertising model is well and truly stuffed the minute they do so.
All of this is entirely legal but will get the public point of view across very quickly. And if the public don't want to do this sort of thing they perhaps they deserve the sort of Government that they seem to have. Yes, I'm a Brit but, no, I no longer live in the UK, by choice. Just my thoughts....
Slashdot Mirror
Well I have two comments to make to that...
I have walked around my local town and I have only seen 4 cameras. They are not as prolific as you seem to think that they are. Perhaps there are areas of major cities where they are on almost every street corner, but not where I live.
Secondly, do you imagine that these cameras are sending personally identifiable information to third parties? I don't. The cameras are used by the police for crime detection, prevention and/or deterrence. I support their use because when my parents visit the cities where they are more commonly deployed they do not feel as vulnerable as they did. They obviously work because most foreigners who haven't been here believe that they are all over the place and, therefore, they don't bother visiting. Unfortunately this also discourages those that we would welcome as well as those that we wish to deter but, hey, its better than nothing.
Others have pointed out that the US has been fighting piracy here for several years, as have the UK and other NATO nations. But they have been doing so as national assets - not as NATO assets. So, NATO declining to be involved is not the same as NATO members refusing to play a role, they are just not doing it under the NATO umbrella because it is not NATO's responsibility.
That's not all. In prison, other things can get close to your mouth and nose you wouldn't want. That's why it's prison.
And do you think that it is acceptable? The punishment of prison is to remove a person's liberty, not to have them subjected to sexual and/or physical assualt while turning a blind eye. Don't you think that, as a nation, you ought to be protecting individuals who are on the receiving end of such treatment or are you going to advocate torture, gladiatorial contests and being thrown to the lions as acceptable punishments?
I am continually astounded that an advanced nation can condone such barbaric behaviour and then be affronted when other nations do not choose to follow the 'American' way. You know, things like 'If you are not with us, then you are against us....'. This behaviour actually makes terrorists look civilised.
From TFA - the purpose os the 3 strike rule is to curb piracy. Are you suggesting that this law is already being used for an entirely different purpose?
Because you can't be sent to prison without some kind of judicial process, usually requiring evidence and such like. That wasn't the case with the French law. If you were identified (by whom? with what level of proof? what about facing your accusers?) to be downloading copyrighted material you would be warned twice and the third time be disconnected. Ubuntu is copyrighted material - can I no longer download it using a torrent? I distribute photographs that I have taken via torrents. They are copyrighted material - I own the copyright! Should my family be forbidden to download them because they contravene this proposed law? How would anyone know that I was downloading copyrighted material. It is illegal for ISPs or any other organisation to monitor communications without judicial consent and oversight. It might not be the case in the US, but it is still the law in all EU countries (admittedly, there are a few who are now bending this law to suit themselves but that doesn't change the fact that they ought not to be doing so).
And which is quicker to type? Do you really think that everybody - even all geeks - writes everything in HTML? You understood that it was a quote, so communication was achieved.
No - read it again
He stated that it doesn't beat those 9, but it beats the other linux computers (i.e. 445)
Ah, so no friends then?
Of course I have, and they are all perfectly able to call me on my landline. Why would I want to talk while driving to or from work, or in the theatre, or anywhere else for that matter?
I have had the same experience. Much reduced spam for over 10 days but now it is almost back to earlier levels.
You seriously don't own a cell phone? On purpose? I mean
No, what on earth would I want a cell phone for? I have a landline telephone that gives me very cheap phone calls throughout N America, Europe and elsewhere. Such a deal is not offered by any cell phone that I know of. When I am traveling, I do not want work colleagues calling me up - I work at work and the rest of my time is my own. You might be surprised, but life can go on even without your favourite cell phone being in your pocket.
Er, I understand the point you're trying to make, but didn't France set of nuclear weapons on French territory just as the US has set of nuclear weapons on its territory? And if you want to argue that France has no real claim to territory in the Pacific, I would welcome your explanation reference a certain part of Cuba that the US lays claim to.
I cannot believe this. You are claiming that if you had downloaded the full game and decided that you liked it, then you (and others) would go out and buy the same game again simply for the pleasure of giving the makers your money? There might be a handful (perhaps one or two only) who would do this but I simply cannot accept that most of those who illegally download software will go out and make a donation (of the full sales price) to the originator if they find that they like it. It might be different for a demo, but if you already have the full game I will argue it never happens.
This is simply a claim to make those who download illegally feel justified about their actions. Its sort of 'I would have paid for each of these 100 games if I had found that I liked them - but of course I didn't like any of them that much.' If you don't like the games - stop downloading them.
Thank you, but I understood that the flow of the coolant is dependant on forward motion or are you suggesting that the flow is maintained by convection alone? If there is forward motion then the must be a drive train to propel it. If modern nuclear subs are quieter than a conventional sub running on batteries then we have certainly made great strides over the last decade or so. Again, thank you for the update.
Diesel submarines quieter then nuclear powered ones ? You were being serious ?
Well, you have just shown how little you know. Diesel submarines underwater are running on battery power. The only noise is from their propulsion system which can even be stopped i.e. no noise. The nuclear sub must keep cooling pumps and other machinery active even if not moving - it can never be completely quiet. While nuclear subs usually have a greater firepower it is diesels that can cause the most problems to someone trying to find them. Yes, they are noisy on the surface when recharging but that isn't the usual operating profile when you are about to attack someone.
All modern submarines are quieter than their predecessors but you will ignore the threat posed by diesels at your peril. We haven't lost the knack, it has always been the same problem.
there are very few countries in the world that tolerate that sorta thing
It depends on what you mean by 'sorta thing'. If you mean fully clothed children posing for a camera seen on the kind of site that has been frequently banned in the US then many other countries do NOT have a problem with that. The problem is with the individuals who get some kind of sexual pleasure from those sites and, even then, if they don't actually do anything then what crime has been committed? The problems with this type of filter is who gets to choose what is kiddie porn and what is not? We might have different but equally valid views both of which comply with the laws of the country under which we live. But having another country tell us we have to change because 'they' don't approve doesn't usually go down well with us. Take for example the cartoons that so offended the Muslim community. Why should my country - which is Christian and considerably more tolerant than many others - be dictated to because what we believe to be acceptable is not the same as their belief? I think that if a country tries to tell other countries how they should behave then they ought to mind their own business. By all means open a channel of discourse and debate but I don't believe that one country has more right than another to decide what is acceptable and what is not.
...and another whoosh.
Why on earth should they ask if people want to copy a file from a friend? Do you believe that you have some inherent right to do such a thing? I'm not getting into the theft/piracy debate but, if you haven't paid for it, then I don't see that you have any 'right' to have a copy of it. Now, if you had paid for it but it wouldn't let you play it on your computer then I would be standing right next to you and supporting you with all my might, but that does not appear to be what you are complaining about.
(similar to how in France, while on business trips, you assume you are being bugged and information will go to your local competition).
I'm afraid the you are suffering from paranoia, or you are confusing France with Russia, maybe. Do you want to buy a tinfoil hat?
And the reason that we don't do that anymore is that the world has progressed and found a better way of doing things. What you are suggesting is a retrograde step, IMHO.
Just try it, I promise that passing policemen will not stop and ticket you.
That might be true in your country, but in many others it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the pavement (sidewalk). You MUST ride on the road. The pavement is reserved for pedestrians. A bicycle is a vehicle just like any other. That's what the road is for - it's just common courtesy! Mind you, if more car drivers were a little more considerate of other road users then there wouldn't be this problem.
Same here (N Europe), I spent yesterday checking my mail server because I had not received any spam for 5 days. Usually, one or 2 will get through the filters but it had been quiet since before the weekend. NO SPAM at all is even arriving at my server. I am reluctant to attribute it to the bust, but I have nothing else to offer that will account for it.
Why not? They can simply record the data going into the microphone to be examined later. What would the difference be between "merely" storing every email sent and "merely" recording every conversation?
Because an email already contains information to identify the sender - or 'speaker' - of the information. There is little to no administrative overhead to managing the data. With a microphone, someone will have to associate the stream of sound at a specific time and place with an individual, and then annotate that item of speech data with metadata to enable it to be found during later searches. This requires impossibly huge amounts of manpower for an all-encompassing surveillance system. You might be able to do it for a small number of individuals if you follow them around and know which microphone to use at any given instance, but it will be impossible for a larger system to know which voices each microphone is currently recording. How the hell would the staff of a pizza restaurant know who is sitting at each table by name? Even if you were stupid enough to use a credit card to pay - which would give them some personally identifying information - it does nothing to help identify the person that you were talking to.
Unfortunately, in the UK they already have the power to demand that you hand over your encryption keys. The solution is not just encryption, but genuine random data sent between your encrypted emails. When they demand your keys simply, and legally, show them that it is random data. The system will not be able to cope with masses of data that _they_ will still believe is encrypted but for which no keys can be produced. Perhaps they will make an example of a few by taking them to court. Well, let's see what happens when it gets bounced to the European Court of Human Rights. The crime has not been committed unless it can be _proven_ to be committed.
When they (eventually) find some way of closing this loophole, then you start sending binary dumps of data. It is not encrypted but, to all intents and purposes, it is meaningless to anyone looking at it in transit. Will they then make sending binary data illegal? Can you imagine the economic and industrial fallout of such a law?
To those that think that this is pointless, I disagree. The first thing that will be apparent is the degree to which this monitoring is actually being conducted. No, not the hype that every email will be kept and read, but what can they _actually_ do with that much data? How many people will actually get a visit from the police? (My guess is none.) What I think will be apparent is that they will have a database that, once a suspect is identified, can be examined to find possible additional evidence. But they are not going to be reading everyone's emails everyday. That doesn't make the system any more acceptable but it will show that they are not going anywhere near the 'microphone in very home, restaurant etc' claim that someone posted earlier.
Then one has to think of all the data that they don't want. Spam, technical updates, forum summaries, OS binaries etc. Perhaps they will discover the ultimate filter for spam or, gasp, get tough on those that generate it - Heaven forbid that something useful might come from this ridiculous law. But, until that time, I sure there is someone bright enough on this forum to devise a piece of software that can hide a message inside something that appears to be spam, a technical update, or a forum summary. Flood the system so that the demands of storing and analysing this entirely innocent and legal data simply make the whole thing unworkable.
For the 'websites visited' database, that is even easier to flood. Google for a random word, and then have software visit every alternate link on that page, one every second, and simply discard the data. Hey, my broadband is already paid for, it will not affect my data downloading in the slightest. But the database that they have to hold is getting much bigger than they might first have imagined that it would. Out of all the sites that I might visit in 24hours (86400) they have to discover if one of them is actually a front for something more sinister. Before you howl about how one might download something that you wouldn't want to see anyway (pornography, terrorist website or whatever) my answer is that you might already stumble upon such a site anyway. The fact that you did no more that go to a Google link is not yet a criminal offence, and if they want to make it one then much of the internet advertising model is well and truly stuffed the minute they do so.
All of this is entirely legal but will get the public point of view across very quickly. And if the public don't want to do this sort of thing they perhaps they deserve the sort of Government that they seem to have. Yes, I'm a Brit but, no, I no longer live in the UK, by choice. Just my thoughts....
Whooooooooosh
In which case, I apologise both to you and to those Americans whose name I have taken in error. :-)