Of course, the REAL issue isn't even guns, it is mental health. We have kids who are unstable, unbalanced, and unloved, and the system does nothing for them. There is no way to identify problem or challenged kids and get them some help before they go off the deep end.
This isn't limited to kids, we have the same problem with adults. The mental health care system in this county is sad, we don't offer help early enough to those who need it and as a result, we have people who go crazy and do stupid stuff.
I think your thoughts on the use of firearms by the general public are likely to create so strong of a gut-level response (both in support of and against) that your point about mental health issues is likely to be missed. Approaching these problems from the point of view of mental health rather than an exercise in policing tactics response times seems more likley to result in longer term improvements. Regarless of one's position on public use of firearms, I suspect that most people would like to see a society where fewer people were "unstable, unbalanced, and unloved" - it is unfortunate that it is so difficult to get everyone to agree how to address those issues.
School shootings are bad. They are also rare on a per-school basis. Chicago for example has about 613 elementary and high schools - is it a wise use of resources to spend up to 61 million dollars for this type of system? I bet we would save more lives by hiring an extra crossing guard per school, or putting in traffic speed bumps around the school.
You mean jailbroken iOS devices downloading pirated software from a dodgy store?
Non-jailbroken devices that don't have this store available are immune to this, as this malware isn't coming from Apple's store.
Actually, it looks like this is driven by a Mac OS X application the at was spread by being delivered along with legitimate software from a software collection site (like the info-mac archives once was in those halcion days of yore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Or maybe it was cracked/stolen/pirated software that contained the malware.
Once installed on the Mac OS X computer, making use of legittimage Apple developer credentials, the software seems to have been able to infect non-jailbroken iOS devices when those devices were attached to the machine via USB.
The reason you can refrain from providing a passcode is because the 5th Amendment protects you against self-incrimination, and the very act of providing the passcode may in itself be incriminating, since it demonstrates that you have an awareness and knowledge of the device and the means to unlock it. Which is to say, while the police may have the authority (when authorized by a proper warrant) to search your phone, they do not have the authority to compel you to give up your own rights by providing a passcode.
If that was the only argument, how would the following be different?
The reason you can refrain from [unlocking with your finger] is because the 5th Amendment protects you against self-incrimination, and the very act of [unlocking with your finger] may in itself be incriminating, since it demonstrates that you have an awareness and knowledge of the device and the means to unlock it. Which is to say, while the police may have the authority (when authorized by a proper warrant) to search your phone, they do not have the authority to compel you to give up your own rights by [unlocking with your finger].
Credit card 15-20% APR, debit card you make money though interest. How is not having a credit card is a poor financial decision?
Not having access to immediate credit is less useful than having access to that credit. It is probably a poor financial decision to USE credit at 15%, but having a credit card with a 15% APR is better than having NO access to immediate credit at any rate.
If you currently are speding x$ per month by way of a debit card, you could spend the exact same amount each month on a credit card, and at the end of the month pay off that credit card with the money from the bank, thereby gaining the (admiditaly minimal) intrest for having that money in the bank. Many credit cards also supply extended warantees, theft protection, travel insurance and other benifits, including points/miles/credits/cash rewards. Each of these features is available from credit cards with no fees.
It should be noted however, that carring a balance at 15% will quickly swamp the small financial gains listed above. If you cannot pay off your credit cards each month, they are best avoided.
That's what the system in Canada has turned into. Most banks only allow 2 or 3 debit transactions before they start charging for access to your own account. In fact, the banks here count online payments and pay-by-phone as counting towards that limit. So pay your power bill and phone bill, then pay 50Â fee for evey debit transaction. You can avoid the fee by paying $10 or so every month to the bank or by keeping a minimum of $1500 in an account that pays 0% interest. Banking in Canada sucks.
PC Financial and other online banks have much better fees (typically zero for this type of thing). Most credit unions are also pretty good. The FInancial Consumer Agency seems to have a tool to investigate every type of account from every institution out there: http://www.fcac-acfc.gc.ca/Eng...
We don't use any of the serial only chips, but on the higher end with JTAG and SPI the FTDI parts work great and aren't too expensive. If any "clone" chips get into our supply chain we would be very pissed at whoever did it. We specify actual FDTI parts for a reason. The "clones" have very hit or miss quality. We don't use them under windows either.
I suspect however that if FDTI fakes did make it into your supply chain, you would much prefer any FDTI software updates to toss up a "we won't work with this device" message rather than making the device not work with any software. I don't know that I would continue to use a supplier with this type of business practice if there were any viable alternatives.
The most "efficient" method in terms of customers served per unit time is multiple lines, one behind each register - then there is minimal downtime between customers and the numbers served are maximized, however it has the major disadvantage of not minimizing the time spent in line by each customer - the unlucky ones pick a slow attendant who managed to get all of the slow patrons with special situations that need extra time to serve. The one line feeding separate servers is most fair as everyone goes through the same line and nobody gets stuck waiting for the slow server or stuck behind the slow patrons while being passed by the lucky patrons who got the faster lines. However, the one line has the disadvantage of causing a delay for everyone for each customer as the customer walks to the checkout from the front of the single line. This can be substantive: if the walk is ten seconds and the line is 60 people long, this is 600 seconds, or ten extra minutes you would be standing in line compared to if the walk was instantaneous. The way around this is to have a long line feeding to short lines (even only one patron deep) at each checkout. Yes, people stuck behind a problem patron can sometimes wait a bit longer than they might like, but on average they tend to be better off. I have seen this type of thing work well at customs checkpoints at airports, where there is someone in authority telling people where to go. The difficulty of course is that any of these single line->multiple checkers work well without mechnisms to keep them working - either a machine or a person telling the next in line where to go and ideally watching the whole system to work around individual slowdowns and special cases. It is not very self-organizing.
It's fine to do that for gmail or yahoo, Comcast, etc but deepdarksecert.com might not appreciate it if iPhones are sending that information back to apple even if it is never published.
I don't think that anything beyond the "deepdarkseceret.com" is going to to Apple, but I suppose if you are worried about anyone knowing what your email address is, then yeah, it might be a concern. Someone posted a link to an RFC of some sort that detailed how mail server settings should be published that could make this type of system unneccessary - too bad that is not more widely implemented.
Summer temperatures up north can still get pretty warm. Bettles AK (on the arctic circle) has high temperates in the summer of at least the low 90s occasionally, and this is warm enough that compined with a sealed car and lots of sun can certainly push the car temperatures up pretty high. Summer days can be very long too.
Well I could always block encrypted traffic and implement introspection rules or allow encrypted traffic and implement MITM. It is my LAN and there is absolutely nothing apple can do about it;-)
If my phone and Apple's server already have a pre-shared encryption key, how are you going to implement a MITH attack? (or should that be "an MITM attack"? I suppose it depends if you read it as "em-eye-tee-em" or "Man In The Middle".) You can certainly drop the connection, but I don't see how you could read or spoof it.
Same here. I've been using that "feature" to check how long the maid stays when she comes by to do weekly housekeeping.
Now I know how she can afford an iPhone, she charges for 3h but stays 2h!
Untill you knew how long it took her, were you happy with the quality of the cleaning and the price you were paying? If so, try not be be bothered by her "profit margin". If not, renegotiate the fee, or find someone else to do the job.
With all that said, are you paying her a "living wage"? For Alameda County, California that comes out to something like $24/hour for a single adult supporting one child or at least $11.50/hour to support just the working adult.
Of course people working jobs like house cleaning or computer consulting cannot typically get billable hours for 40 hours per week due to scheduling difficulties and travel time, so the hourly rate needs to be higher to account for that, or as your cleaner may attest, the "billing time" might be longer than the "working time". Other ways of offsetting this it to impose time minimums (at least two hours per job) or charge for travel time or distance. Considering that the IRS has a standard car expense of $0.56/mile, if someone is driving 60 mph they are generating an expense of $33.60/hour. Granted, the IRS is very generous on this expense calculation, but the actual expense for most people is probably close to at least half of that.
That would require an even bigger violation. They would have to have the client send the actual configuration to Apple as well so they can have the data. Not all businesses would appreciate that.
I'm not so sure - most email providers provide all this information on their web pages anyway. Unless you are suggesting that Apple's mail client is waiting for people to manually set up some email and then sending that information to Apple for use by future users, I don't see any problem for Apple to notice that they are getting lots of requests for email accounts at "someplace.com" and then someone at Apple looking up setup info for someplace.com and pushing that data out to users as needed.
While this type of "auto-setup" is extermely useful (especially on iOS where typing stuff and cut/past and switching between the settings and the web-browser are less than ideal), I do wish it was a bit easier to get straight to the "manual" configuration dialogues. For times when I know that the auto-setup is going to do it in a way I do not want, I usually start by entering a bad domain which does not return a useful result and that lets me do the setup completely manually.
The only thing that keeps me from using a password manager is that I use lots of different computers, phones, tablets, etc... and I don't know of any password manager than can manage multiple devices. Does anyone know of a password manager that works with apps? Even if I wanted to, I don't think my android banking app would work with any type of password manager intentionally or unintentionally.
Find a password "safe" format that is well documented and widely supported, memorize a good long passphrase for that safe, and deploy it on some cloud service somewhere like DropBox, then each of your devices can access the safe, and you have a variety of software to manage the data. Schneier's "Password Safe" format seems like a good choice:
Even if it does not work with everything you might want it too, a password manager can make for much better security and convenience for large chunks of one's online life, at the expense of having a single point of failure I guess.
My family and I really enjoyed the first "Star Wars Uncut" production of "A New Hope" a few years back. My two pre-teens submitted a scene for this one and we have yet to look and see if it "made the cut". We are looking forward to watching it. There is a torrent of the completed film here: https://torrentz.eu/2cdaab3f30...
If you don't like the scene choices, I think the website has the ability to view the other options for scenes that were submitted - maybe you can even mix your own?
Perhaps by having more biofuel at no significant additional cost?
"More food for the same price" can hardly be a bad thing.
Well, if the local farmers cannot compete with the pricing of the imported stuff, then they go out of business and eventually all of the local money gets spent outside of the community on imported food. If there is insufficient local production of something for export, eventually all of the local money is gone, then everyone locally is screwed.
I"m not saying this type of thing is guaranteed to happen, but sometimes when the buggy whip makers go out of business, the knock on effects are wider than one might think.
One cannot 'get a warrant for the password', at least in civilized countries:)
OK, perhaps not a "warrant" but surely the US has some sort of "production order" where the court says "give us the records you have" http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/c... ? Perhaps they don't, or maybe that is only in civil cases during discovery.
Logging capabilities may be ubiquitous, but logs that would be useful in a criminal case, much less so. In any case, nothing currently on the market poses this "privacy danger".
I reiterate, the present framework is sufficient in my mind.
Would you submit to the government mandating that you wear a camera and other monitoring equipment or have it implanted, provided that they need a warrant to read its contents?
Can you think of ANY negative implications of that? What are they? (Assume for the sake of the argument that the implantation process itself is simple, painless, and complication free.)
What's the difference between that and a disabled person requiring a prosthetic to be made whole?
The solution, by the way, is simple enough. Mandate that the prosthetics encrypt the monitoring data, and require a password from the owner to decrypt. That effectively shields the cyborg.
The problem is the consumer isn't in a position to demand this feature. And the vendor is unlikely to feel competitive pressures to provide it. So it won't come about unless we mandate it.
Sure, that is an extreme position. Nobody is mandating such a thing, and there is nothing currently even available that could work in this manner, and there is no reason I can see to expect that any prosthetics would ever require such position logging.
In short I don't see the need for new legislation absent something that actually exists that might be a problem. Mandating everyone wear tracking devices is something we can fight when it seems likely to be introduced. Having a medical need for something doesn't feel at all like governmental mandating in my mind, and unless significant number of people end up with such medical devices, I see no need to address the hypothetical shortcomings that the current warrant framework has in place.
I am not convinced that mandating an encryption password for such a hypothetical device would give any real protection beyond that offered by the warrant system - once they get a warrant for the password, it seems like you are screwed anyway. If the logs are so vital to the operation of the device, there are going to be ways of getting at them that do not depend on a security system that the user can forget or misplace, and if they are not vital to the operation, then the security minded will remove or turn off that feature or the maker would not put it in in the first place.
Yep. I wouldn't be happy, but then again I wouldn't be happy if they searched my home and found the bodies, but I would submit.
The 5th amendment is about government over-reach. If you assume the government is only looking for dead-bodies, and the only people hiding them are criminals then its easy to get swept up behind the idea that anything the government can get a warrant for is fair game. Only criminals will be punished.
But there should be some limits. Even if that means some times some criminals don't get caught, because the alternative leads to a grossly oppressive state.
There are limits. Those are defined by the constitution, and include the warrant system as further defined by the courts. Yes, some of these technologies give interesting edge cases, but I don't think any of them require fundamental changes to the legal framework.
As you stated, the reason the limitations on police powers of investigation are there is to prevent overreaching and false convictions. Retrieving physical evidence after a properly executed warrant doesn't seem like an issue to me, and I have absolutely no fear that anyone is going to be able to read people's minds in anything like the lifetime of my great-grandchildren.
"We found DNA... no full match in the system, but we know he's related to this guy who was arrested once for shoplifting -- he wasn't the guy, but they took his dna and now its in the system... but I digress... they share a grandparent... so its his cousin. We checked birth records... he has 2, one lives in this city... so we're picking him up now..."
That's effectively being in a DNA database for not being particularly closely related to a guy who didn't do anything wrong.
You are choosing poor examples. The various constitutional amendments are designed to prevent abuses that harm people, except in the type of harm that is defined as putting the guilty in jail. We don't compel self-incrimination because it leads to abuses that harm many innocent people, and is not particularly effective at catching the guilty. If you want to argue against you are going to have to show that your hypothetical database and the described police procedure has much greater societal harm than this one.
A better reason for limiting these types of databases is the problem of false positives. If you database is large enough, even with 99.99 percent accuracy (a failure rate of 0.01%) we would have lots of innocent people being flagged in these types of searches. This type of thing already happens for fingerprint analysis, and while genetic comparisons should in principle allow us to confidently pick out any individual in the world (except for clones I suppose), in practice DNA evidence is only comparing a very tiny part of the DNA, and errors in application which can never all be eliminated, so it will never be perfectly accurate.
Compelling people to tell your their password in my mind is a problem - there are lots of ways that an innocent person could be harmed by that. Compelling people to give up their implanted devices with a proper warrant is not as big of a problem in my mind. If warrants are being issued for individuals without good "probable cause", that is a problem. If extracting the evidence is onerous or dangerous or painful, then there should be a higher barrier to getting the warrant. If there are increased expectations of privacy for example lawyers or times spent at home, then perhaps there need to be guidelines on how the implant data is analyzed, but all of these types of issues are currently considered under the existing frameworks.
My thesis is that cyborgs do have the same right to privacy as anyone else, and that no new laws need be drafted specifically for people with implants. To motivate any such laws, I think we need to demonstrate that the current practice has negative consequences to society or innocent individuals. Making it easier to catch criminals is not, by itself, a reason to reject a new practice.
Because it doesn't necessarily still work. I have an iphone that is nearly 3 years old and the home button is very nearly worn out, frequently only working intermittently.
One of my clients has an iPhone with a flaky button. He had an Apple Store person turn on a software button called "Assistive Touch" which is part of the standard iOS software. It might be useful in your situation too. Here are some instructions:
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the REAL issue isn't even guns, it is mental health. We have kids who are unstable, unbalanced, and unloved, and the system does nothing for them. There is no way to identify problem or challenged kids and get them some help before they go off the deep end.
This isn't limited to kids, we have the same problem with adults. The mental health care system in this county is sad, we don't offer help early enough to those who need it and as a result, we have people who go crazy and do stupid stuff.
I think your thoughts on the use of firearms by the general public are likely to create so strong of a gut-level response (both in support of and against) that your point about mental health issues is likely to be missed. Approaching these problems from the point of view of mental health rather than an exercise in policing tactics response times seems more likley to result in longer term improvements. Regarless of one's position on public use of firearms, I suspect that most people would like to see a society where fewer people were "unstable, unbalanced, and unloved" - it is unfortunate that it is so difficult to get everyone to agree how to address those issues.
School shootings are bad. They are also rare on a per-school basis. Chicago for example has about 613 elementary and high schools - is it a wise use of resources to spend up to 61 million dollars for this type of system? I bet we would save more lives by hiring an extra crossing guard per school, or putting in traffic speed bumps around the school.
You mean jailbroken iOS devices downloading pirated software from a dodgy store?
Non-jailbroken devices that don't have this store available are immune to this, as this malware isn't coming from Apple's store.
Actually, it looks like this is driven by a Mac OS X application the at was spread by being delivered along with legitimate software from a software collection site (like the info-mac archives once was in those halcion days of yore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Or maybe it was cracked/stolen/pirated software that contained the malware.
Once installed on the Mac OS X computer, making use of legittimage Apple developer credentials, the software seems to have been able to infect non-jailbroken iOS devices when those devices were attached to the machine via USB.
The reason you can refrain from providing a passcode is because the 5th Amendment protects you against self-incrimination, and the very act of providing the passcode may in itself be incriminating, since it demonstrates that you have an awareness and knowledge of the device and the means to unlock it. Which is to say, while the police may have the authority (when authorized by a proper warrant) to search your phone, they do not have the authority to compel you to give up your own rights by providing a passcode.
If that was the only argument, how would the following be different?
The reason you can refrain from [unlocking with your finger] is because the 5th Amendment protects you against self-incrimination, and the very act of [unlocking with your finger] may in itself be incriminating, since it demonstrates that you have an awareness and knowledge of the device and the means to unlock it. Which is to say, while the police may have the authority (when authorized by a proper warrant) to search your phone, they do not have the authority to compel you to give up your own rights by [unlocking with your finger].
You had me believing your first paragraph. Then I got to the second. Richilieu was never demoted to bishop!
Credit card 15-20% APR, debit card you make money though interest. How is not having a credit card is a poor financial decision?
Not having access to immediate credit is less useful than having access to that credit. It is probably a poor financial decision to USE credit at 15%, but having a credit card with a 15% APR is better than having NO access to immediate credit at any rate.
If you currently are speding x$ per month by way of a debit card, you could spend the exact same amount each month on a credit card, and at the end of the month pay off that credit card with the money from the bank, thereby gaining the (admiditaly minimal) intrest for having that money in the bank. Many credit cards also supply extended warantees, theft protection, travel insurance and other benifits, including points/miles/credits/cash rewards. Each of these features is available from credit cards with no fees.
It should be noted however, that carring a balance at 15% will quickly swamp the small financial gains listed above. If you cannot pay off your credit cards each month, they are best avoided.
That's what the system in Canada has turned into. Most banks only allow 2 or 3 debit transactions before they start charging for access to your own account. In fact, the banks here count online payments and pay-by-phone as counting towards that limit. So pay your power bill and phone bill, then pay 50Â fee for evey debit transaction. You can avoid the fee by paying $10 or so every month to the bank or by keeping a minimum of $1500 in an account that pays 0% interest. Banking in Canada sucks.
PC Financial and other online banks have much better fees (typically zero for this type of thing). Most credit unions are also pretty good. The FInancial Consumer Agency seems to have a tool to investigate every type of account from every institution out there: http://www.fcac-acfc.gc.ca/Eng...
We don't use any of the serial only chips, but on the higher end with JTAG and SPI the FTDI parts work great and aren't too expensive. If any "clone" chips get into our supply chain we would be very pissed at whoever did it. We specify actual FDTI parts for a reason. The "clones" have very hit or miss quality. We don't use them under windows either.
I suspect however that if FDTI fakes did make it into your supply chain, you would much prefer any FDTI software updates to toss up a "we won't work with this device" message rather than making the device not work with any software. I don't know that I would continue to use a supplier with this type of business practice if there were any viable alternatives.
The most "efficient" method in terms of customers served per unit time is multiple lines, one behind each register - then there is minimal downtime between customers and the numbers served are maximized, however it has the major disadvantage of not minimizing the time spent in line by each customer - the unlucky ones pick a slow attendant who managed to get all of the slow patrons with special situations that need extra time to serve. The one line feeding separate servers is most fair as everyone goes through the same line and nobody gets stuck waiting for the slow server or stuck behind the slow patrons while being passed by the lucky patrons who got the faster lines. However, the one line has the disadvantage of causing a delay for everyone for each customer as the customer walks to the checkout from the front of the single line. This can be substantive: if the walk is ten seconds and the line is 60 people long, this is 600 seconds, or ten extra minutes you would be standing in line compared to if the walk was instantaneous. The way around this is to have a long line feeding to short lines (even only one patron deep) at each checkout. Yes, people stuck behind a problem patron can sometimes wait a bit longer than they might like, but on average they tend to be better off. I have seen this type of thing work well at customs checkpoints at airports, where there is someone in authority telling people where to go. The difficulty of course is that any of these single line->multiple checkers work well without mechnisms to keep them working - either a machine or a person telling the next in line where to go and ideally watching the whole system to work around individual slowdowns and special cases. It is not very self-organizing.
It's fine to do that for gmail or yahoo, Comcast, etc but deepdarksecert.com might not appreciate it if iPhones are sending that information back to apple even if it is never published.
I don't think that anything beyond the "deepdarkseceret.com" is going to to Apple, but I suppose if you are worried about anyone knowing what your email address is, then yeah, it might be a concern. Someone posted a link to an RFC of some sort that detailed how mail server settings should be published that could make this type of system unneccessary - too bad that is not more widely implemented.
We just watched Empire "uncut" last week http://www.starwarsuncut.com/ but I don' tthink there were any biplane scenes. It was fun.
Summer temperatures up north can still get pretty warm. Bettles AK (on the arctic circle) has high temperates in the summer of at least the low 90s occasionally, and this is warm enough that compined with a sealed car and lots of sun can certainly push the car temperatures up pretty high. Summer days can be very long too.
Well I could always block encrypted traffic and implement introspection rules or allow encrypted traffic and implement MITM. It is my LAN and there is absolutely nothing apple can do about it ;-)
If my phone and Apple's server already have a pre-shared encryption key, how are you going to implement a MITH attack? (or should that be "an MITM attack"? I suppose it depends if you read it as "em-eye-tee-em" or "Man In The Middle".) You can certainly drop the connection, but I don't see how you could read or spoof it.
Same here. I've been using that "feature" to check how long the maid stays when she comes by to do weekly housekeeping.
Now I know how she can afford an iPhone, she charges for 3h but stays 2h!
Untill you knew how long it took her, were you happy with the quality of the cleaning and the price you were paying? If so, try not be be bothered by her "profit margin". If not, renegotiate the fee, or find someone else to do the job.
With all that said, are you paying her a "living wage"? For Alameda County, California that comes out to something like $24/hour for a single adult supporting one child or at least $11.50/hour to support just the working adult.
http://livingwage.mit.edu/
Of course people working jobs like house cleaning or computer consulting cannot typically get billable hours for 40 hours per week due to scheduling difficulties and travel time, so the hourly rate needs to be higher to account for that, or as your cleaner may attest, the "billing time" might be longer than the "working time". Other ways of offsetting this it to impose time minimums (at least two hours per job) or charge for travel time or distance. Considering that the IRS has a standard car expense of $0.56/mile, if someone is driving 60 mph they are generating an expense of $33.60/hour. Granted, the IRS is very generous on this expense calculation, but the actual expense for most people is probably close to at least half of that.
http://www.irs.gov/2014-Standa...
There are very few people getting rich cleaning houses.
if you ask siri where to bury the body, she needs to go back to the apple servers to get the info.
That's funny.
That would require an even bigger violation. They would have to have the client send the actual configuration to Apple as well so they can have the data. Not all businesses would appreciate that.
I'm not so sure - most email providers provide all this information on their web pages anyway. Unless you are suggesting that Apple's mail client is waiting for people to manually set up some email and then sending that information to Apple for use by future users, I don't see any problem for Apple to notice that they are getting lots of requests for email accounts at "someplace.com" and then someone at Apple looking up setup info for someplace.com and pushing that data out to users as needed.
While this type of "auto-setup" is extermely useful (especially on iOS where typing stuff and cut/past and switching between the settings and the web-browser are less than ideal), I do wish it was a bit easier to get straight to the "manual" configuration dialogues. For times when I know that the auto-setup is going to do it in a way I do not want, I usually start by entering a bad domain which does not return a useful result and that lets me do the setup completely manually.
Didn't Niven write a bunch of Green Lantern stuff?
http://www.graspingforthewind....
The only thing that keeps me from using a password manager is that I use lots of
different computers, phones, tablets, etc... and I don't know of any password manager than
can manage multiple devices. Does anyone know of a password manager that works with
apps? Even if I wanted to, I don't think my android banking app would work with any type
of password manager intentionally or unintentionally.
Find a password "safe" format that is well documented and widely supported, memorize a good long passphrase for that safe, and deploy it on some cloud service somewhere like DropBox, then each of your devices can access the safe, and you have a variety of software to manage the data. Schneier's "Password Safe" format seems like a good choice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://passwordsafe.sourceforg...
Even if it does not work with everything you might want it too, a password manager can make for much better security and convenience for large chunks of one's online life, at the expense of having a single point of failure I guess.
My family and I really enjoyed the first "Star Wars Uncut" production of "A New Hope" a few years back. My two pre-teens submitted a scene for this one and we have yet to look and see if it "made the cut". We are looking forward to watching it. There is a torrent of the completed film here: https://torrentz.eu/2cdaab3f30...
If you don't like the scene choices, I think the website has the ability to view the other options for scenes that were submitted - maybe you can even mix your own?
Canada switched the road signs in the 1970's. In comparison, the UK is a really really small country. I'm sure the UK could handle it.
Perhaps by having more biofuel at no significant additional cost?
"More food for the same price" can hardly be a bad thing.
Well, if the local farmers cannot compete with the pricing of the imported stuff, then they go out of business and eventually all of the local money gets spent outside of the community on imported food. If there is insufficient local production of something for export, eventually all of the local money is gone, then everyone locally is screwed.
I"m not saying this type of thing is guaranteed to happen, but sometimes when the buggy whip makers go out of business, the knock on effects are wider than one might think.
once they get a warrant for the password,
One cannot 'get a warrant for the password', at least in civilized countries :)
OK, perhaps not a "warrant" but surely the US has some sort of "production order" where the court says "give us the records you have" http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/c... ? Perhaps they don't, or maybe that is only in civil cases during discovery.
Logging capabilities may be ubiquitous, but logs that would be useful in a criminal case, much less so. In any case, nothing currently on the market poses this "privacy danger".
I reiterate, the present framework is sufficient in my mind.
Ok, lets take a slightly different approach.
Would you submit to the government mandating that you wear a camera and other monitoring equipment or have it implanted, provided that they need a warrant to read its contents?
Can you think of ANY negative implications of that? What are they? (Assume for the sake of the argument that the implantation process itself is simple, painless, and complication free.)
What's the difference between that and a disabled person requiring a prosthetic to be made whole?
The solution, by the way, is simple enough. Mandate that the prosthetics encrypt the monitoring data, and require a password from the owner to decrypt. That effectively shields the cyborg.
The problem is the consumer isn't in a position to demand this feature. And the vendor is unlikely to feel competitive pressures to provide it. So it won't come about unless we mandate it.
Sure, that is an extreme position. Nobody is mandating such a thing, and there is nothing currently even available that could work in this manner, and there is no reason I can see to expect that any prosthetics would ever require such position logging.
In short I don't see the need for new legislation absent something that actually exists that might be a problem. Mandating everyone wear tracking devices is something we can fight when it seems likely to be introduced. Having a medical need for something doesn't feel at all like governmental mandating in my mind, and unless significant number of people end up with such medical devices, I see no need to address the hypothetical shortcomings that the current warrant framework has in place.
I am not convinced that mandating an encryption password for such a hypothetical device would give any real protection beyond that offered by the warrant system - once they get a warrant for the password, it seems like you are screwed anyway. If the logs are so vital to the operation of the device, there are going to be ways of getting at them that do not depend on a security system that the user can forget or misplace, and if they are not vital to the operation, then the security minded will remove or turn off that feature or the maker would not put it in in the first place.
Yep. I wouldn't be happy, but then again I wouldn't be happy if they searched my home and found the bodies, but I would submit.
The 5th amendment is about government over-reach. If you assume the government is only looking for dead-bodies, and the only people hiding them are criminals then its easy to get swept up behind the idea that anything the government can get a warrant for is fair game. Only criminals will be punished.
But there should be some limits. Even if that means some times some criminals don't get caught, because the alternative leads to a grossly oppressive state.
There are limits. Those are defined by the constitution, and include the warrant system as further defined by the courts. Yes, some of these technologies give interesting edge cases, but I don't think any of them require fundamental changes to the legal framework.
As you stated, the reason the limitations on police powers of investigation are there is to prevent overreaching and false convictions. Retrieving physical evidence after a properly executed warrant doesn't seem like an issue to me, and I have absolutely no fear that anyone is going to be able to read people's minds in anything like the lifetime of my great-grandchildren.
"We found DNA... no full match in the system, but we know he's related to this guy who was arrested once for shoplifting -- he wasn't the guy, but they took his dna and now its in the system... but I digress... they share a grandparent... so its his cousin. We checked birth records ... he has 2, one lives in this city... so we're picking him up now..."
That's effectively being in a DNA database for not being particularly closely related to a guy who didn't do anything wrong.
You are choosing poor examples. The various constitutional amendments are designed to prevent abuses that harm people, except in the type of harm that is defined as putting the guilty in jail. We don't compel self-incrimination because it leads to abuses that harm many innocent people, and is not particularly effective at catching the guilty. If you want to argue against you are going to have to show that your hypothetical database and the described police procedure has much greater societal harm than this one.
A better reason for limiting these types of databases is the problem of false positives. If you database is large enough, even with 99.99 percent accuracy (a failure rate of 0.01%) we would have lots of innocent people being flagged in these types of searches. This type of thing already happens for fingerprint analysis, and while genetic comparisons should in principle allow us to confidently pick out any individual in the world (except for clones I suppose), in practice DNA evidence is only comparing a very tiny part of the DNA, and errors in application which can never all be eliminated, so it will never be perfectly accurate.
Compelling people to tell your their password in my mind is a problem - there are lots of ways that an innocent person could be harmed by that. Compelling people to give up their implanted devices with a proper warrant is not as big of a problem in my mind. If warrants are being issued for individuals without good "probable cause", that is a problem. If extracting the evidence is onerous or dangerous or painful, then there should be a higher barrier to getting the warrant. If there are increased expectations of privacy for example lawyers or times spent at home, then perhaps there need to be guidelines on how the implant data is analyzed, but all of these types of issues are currently considered under the existing frameworks.
My thesis is that cyborgs do have the same right to privacy as anyone else, and that no new laws need be drafted specifically for people with implants. To motivate any such laws, I think we need to demonstrate that the current practice has negative consequences to society or innocent individuals. Making it easier to catch criminals is not, by itself, a reason to reject a new practice.
Because it doesn't necessarily still work. I have an iphone that is nearly 3 years old and the home button is very nearly worn out, frequently only working intermittently.
One of my clients has an iPhone with a flaky button. He had an Apple Store person turn on a software button called "Assistive Touch" which is part of the standard iOS software. It might be useful in your situation too. Here are some instructions:
http://osxdaily.com/2012/07/02...