You say that it is frequently not very useful. According to the FBI, (who should know,) of all the things you can do when faced with a criminal, the MOST EFFECTIVE way to prevent harm to self, is to resist with a gun. You are more likely to get hurt if you resist with a knife sword, or club. You are more likely to get hurt if you run. You are more likely to get hurt if you cooperate. You are least likely to get hurt if you pull a gun. That is a simple undeniable fact.
You're more likely to get shot.
Maybe, if you have your gun out first, or you get into a mexican standoff? maybe.
But if I come up on you with my gun in my hand, and you start drawing your sidearm, you're getting a bullet right between the eyes. After all, it's self-defense. If I have a sword in my hand and you start drawing your sword, then we have to actually fight if we want to inflict harm. But if we're at guns, as soon as you draw a firearm you are considered a clear and present danger, and dealt with appropriately- ie, inflicting terminal force.
Really, that's all guns do- they accelerate the use of terminal force, because there's no skill to using firearms. Any idiot can shoot somebody, and a lot of idiots do shoot people. Hence, anybody with a gun pointed in your direction is a threat to your life. On the other hand, an idiot with say, a knife; that's a very different circumstance. It takes a good amount of skill to be able to wield a knife effectively. Even if somebody has a knife drawn and is holding it on you at close to point blank range, there's absolutely no guarantee he'll be able to kill you or significantly wound you.
Guns... have lead to the acceptance of the use of immense force. And in many ways, that's a sad thing. So. If you don't want to get killed, don't draw a gun.
Very well. I suggest you reference Fischer v. United States, pp 402-414, in which the court wrote:
Although the attorney-client privilege applies to documents in the hands of an attorney which would have been privileged in the hands of the client by reason of the Fifth Amendment, the taxpayer-clients in these cases would not be protected by that Amendment from producing the documents in question, because production of such documents involves no incriminating testimony and therefore the documents in the hands of the taxpayers' attorneys were not immune from production.
(a) The Fifth Amendment does not independently proscribe the compelled production of every sort of incriminating evidence but applies only when the accused is compelled to make a testimonial communication that is incriminating. P. 408.
(b) Here, however incriminating the contents of the accountants' workpapers might be, the act of producing them - the only thing that the taxpayers are compelled to do - would not itself involve testimonial self-incrimination, and implicitly admitting the existence and possession of the papers does not rise to the level of testimony within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 409-414.
Arguably, (although to my knowledge a US court has not actually examined this specific issue), the fifth amendment does not apply in this situation since the evidence compelled is not incriminating in any way, shape, or form. In and of itself, it has no strategic value.
According to section b), the act of producing them, [the encryption keys] would similarly not involve testimonial self-incrimination.
As held in United States v. Hubbell,
Similarly, the fact that incriminating evidence may be the byproduct of obedience to a regulatory requirement, such as filing an income tax return, maintaining required records, or reporting an accident, does not clothe such required conduct with the testimonial privilege.
Moreover, the court has long held that only the defendant in a criminal trial has any fifth amendment protection whatsoever, so the court could force production of the keys from the other side of the communication channel even if for some reason the fifth amendment prevented them from retrieving them from the defendant.
This argument is similar to the forced production of keys to a safe, which has been a debatable issue.
The difference, as I have explained before, is that they have the evidence of person C. Your right to self-incrimination only extends to not giving the police evidence against yourself.
Sure. You have the right to remain silent... and the court has the right to throw you in jail for the rest of your life for contempt of court, and it has done so. The court has shown itself perfectly willing to impose a rolling punishment for contempt- i.e., they throw you in jail, and every year they bring you out and ask you if you're willing to comply. If you're not, they throw you back in.
Given that the original intention was presumably to put you in jail in the first place, you win nothing by refusing to surrender your encryption keys.
We can play semantic games all day long. The fact of the matter is, in either Britain or the United States, you give up your crypto keys or you get thrown in jail for not giving up your crypto keys.
In any way that matters, you are obligated to surrender your cryptographic keys to the court on demand.
(Moreover, there are quite a few circumstances under which the police are not required to read you your Miranda rights- one of those is if they simply aren't going to introduce anything you say into testimony, because the physical evidence is so strong.)..Woah. Deja Vu. If I'm not mistaken, this was basically an exact copy of my first conversation as a real username on slashdot!
No. Your mistake is that in the case of self-incrimination, the police do not have the evidence- they are looking to you to provide it. You are not obligated to do so.
However, in the case of an encrypted communication, the police are in possession of the evidence, they simply cannot read it. You are obligated to help them do that (in this case. Obviously the police have to know the evidence they want is in fact encrypted- if you were to fiddle with it so you were writing in linguistic code rather than mathematical, so they don't know what they're holding is evidence, they're not going to ask for it to be decrypted either...) and therefore this does not fall under self-incrimination.
This quote perfectly deals with both the issue and your sig:
The common phrase "law and order" is often used mistakenly as a misleading cliche, with emphasis on the "order" part of the phrase, with slight regard for "law". Under a regime of law, a developed legal system imposes restraints on the quest for order. By contrast, a self-help system bypasses such restraints and leans toward the extralegal enforcement of order. Historically, private violence, sometimes in conjunction with constituted authority and sometimes not, came to be used as an instrument for enforcing a system of social, political, economic, and -perhaps most significantly- cultural arrangements against the claims of those whose actions, and whose very existence, were seen as threatening.
-Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force, Skolnick, Jerome, and Fyfe, James.
Then the government throws you in jail until it can forcibly decrypt the datastream, which is, if you're using a good cryptosystem, never.
That's why the british law is on the books- to prevent people from using systems exactly like this. Let's say you're charged with murder, but the evidence is locked up in this cryptostream. You can provide the keys, and have the government jail you for murder, or you can not provide the keys, the government, having no evidence, will drop the murder charge, and slam you with thirty years in prison for impropper use of crypto. You're punished the same either way.
No, I realized what he meant the first time, and he (and you) are still wrong. This has nothing to do with neutrality of networks. It has to do with taxation and regulation of international businesses, plain and simple. The fact that it has to do with the internet is purely incidental.
Then you were not reading the article. Quoth the article:
The government move, when implemented, will fulfil a long-pending demand of internet service providers (ISPs). Internet Service Providers Association of India president Rajesh Chharia said: "It is essential that the government seeks this undertaking from call centres as these foreign service providers do not possess the requisite licences as mandated by the Government of India for Indian ISPs."
Once this proposal is implemented, the government, in case of an emergency, would be able to trace details of all internet telephony minutes. This is because, when minutes are purchased from authorised players, the company is mandated to provide any data pertaining to the use of internet telephony like call detail record, if required by the security agencies.
The two sections I bolded implied that money is indeed being paid, and further, this section does too:
...were also causing great revenue loss to the government as they did not pay the 12% service tax and 6% revenue share on internet telephony.
How do you pay a tax on something that you're not paying for at all?
Because, according to the article (which is detail sparse), these companies are being paid for providing this service. The companies are not remitting the propper taxes, acquiring the propper licenses, etc, etc. How hard is this for some people to understand?
You've never heard of proposals to tax work done in video games? The theory is, work is being done, and value is being accumulated from it. Therefore, that value should be taxable.
Not exactly. It's more like the government wiretapping your phone. The only reason the law exists requiring you to hand over encryption keys is because the government doesn't have the supercomputing strength availible to break it in a reasonable period of time.
The alternative, of course, is that the government can hold you without bail and put off your trial until its supercomputers finish decrypting your communications to be used as evidence.
Which would you rather?
Frankly, it's nothing at all like self-incrimination, either legally or logically.
I don't think anybody said that. This is, however, not just some random decision by the Indian government to OMG CENSOR TEH INTARWEB TUBES! as the headline pretends.
It's a standard, relatively sane, completely understandable move. Hell, I'm 90% sure the FCC has already done this.
Now, there are a lot of reasons why it's not a good thing. But that doesn't detract from any of the above.
This has absolutely nothing to do with network neutrality. This has to do with companies that are doing business with Indian companies not paying Indian taxes.
That is what is making the Indian government pissed. They are not trying to restrict VOIP for the hell of it. They just want what any government wants- to regulate it and tax it, and if they can't, to make it illegal and then extract fines from it.
...that 'outdated and irrelevant business model' would be the government, seeing as they are, according to TFA, pissed off that the VOIP companies are not paying their taxes.
Er, ever heard of batteries? It's perfectly possible to have capacatance stations built into the grid that serve as temporary UPS units for when the power slacks. Similarly, if you spread the generating stations out roughly evenly around the planet and build in enough extra capacity, (maybe 5%, I'm talking out of my ass here) the chances of cloud covering enough of that generator grid to cause a severe power loss are probably negligable.
Presumably, you'd want the capacitance spread out across the grid- not only to prevent brownouts due to lack of power production, but also to temporarily handle spikes in load and to handle temporary grid failures. Neighbourhood or even house-scale capacitance units wouldn't require much storage and could effienctly handle temporary spikes in load, like the use of (for example) a microwave or vacuumn cleaner.
Of course, if you're splitting up capacitance that way, why not split up generation that way too? Just use the power grid as a way to ship excess power around to handle temporary generation losses.
Energy from the sun at maximum potential is what, 1 KW per square meter? My house's roof is probably 15-20 square meters; 12 KW on a sunny day is great. I have absolutely no idea at the moment how much power I'm actually using, on average, (including nights, etc) but I'll bet this won't be enough to cover it. That's okay. Even if it covers half of it...
...why do I even bother to argue with idiotic libertarian wankers like you? If you can't understand the basic principle behind taxes, you're not intelligent enough to live in civilized society.
The guy was right: taxation is robbery. Residence in a place is not voluntary if you are born into it.
Obviously in your fantasy world, immigration is a word that has no meaning.
Scandanavia's living standards are at least a little lower than those in the US: that is why you get more people moving from Scandinavia to the US than the other way around. Even the health care is inferior: you certainly have no hospitals in Scandinavia to compare to Mayo in the US.
From the United Nation's 2006 Human Development Index; the top countries in the world to live in are Norway, Iceland, Australia, Ireland, Sweeden, Canada, and Japan; in the top 15, you also have Switzerland, Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Austria, and Denmark. So no. Scandinavia is, pretty much, the best place in the world to live.
Secondly, American health care is all well and good... if you're one of the top 0.0001% of Americans rich enough to go to the Mayo. For the other 99.9999%, their healthcare is subpar. Moreover, if you examine statistics, like here, you will see that the US spends close to twice as much on health care, per capita, as the next leading country- and according to the WHO, the US is rated 24th in average delivery of healthcare. The data is here.
Also, no matter how you try to spin it, if you end up shot and killed for refusing to pay taxes, that is how it is. Resisting arrest and the threat of force are just parts of the robbery.
No, it's absolutely not how it is. There is no death penalty for not paying your taxes, you fuckwit. If you THEN ATTEMPT TO COMPOUND THAT BY BEING A DANGER TO SOCIETY, you may get yourself killed. But simply not paying your taxes is not enough.
Yes, similarly, shoplifting can result in a "death penalty": but shoplifting is a specific and easily-avoided action that violates other's rights.
Not paying your taxes is also a specific and easily-avoided action that violates other's rights. you could just pay your fucking taxes.
Not giving money to robbers is not an action: it is the default situation, and it doesn't violate anyone's rights except for the arrogant "right" of the ruling class to think it can steal from anyone.
Except there are no robbers. Nobody is forcing you to pay your taxes. if you don't want to pay your taxes, you can leave the country and go somewhere else. Oh, oops, there are no magical libertarian fantasy lands with no taxes? too bad, so sad. You pay your taxes, and in exchange, the government provides you services. It's an agreement both parties fulfill. The way you can stop agreeing is to leave.
Slashdot Mirror
You're more likely to get shot.
Maybe, if you have your gun out first, or you get into a mexican standoff? maybe.
But if I come up on you with my gun in my hand, and you start drawing your sidearm, you're getting a bullet right between the eyes. After all, it's self-defense. If I have a sword in my hand and you start drawing your sword, then we have to actually fight if we want to inflict harm. But if we're at guns, as soon as you draw a firearm you are considered a clear and present danger, and dealt with appropriately- ie, inflicting terminal force.
Really, that's all guns do- they accelerate the use of terminal force, because there's no skill to using firearms. Any idiot can shoot somebody, and a lot of idiots do shoot people. Hence, anybody with a gun pointed in your direction is a threat to your life. On the other hand, an idiot with say, a knife; that's a very different circumstance. It takes a good amount of skill to be able to wield a knife effectively. Even if somebody has a knife drawn and is holding it on you at close to point blank range, there's absolutely no guarantee he'll be able to kill you or significantly wound you.
Guns... have lead to the acceptance of the use of immense force. And in many ways, that's a sad thing. So. If you don't want to get killed, don't draw a gun.
Arguably, (although to my knowledge a US court has not actually examined this specific issue), the fifth amendment does not apply in this situation since the evidence compelled is not incriminating in any way, shape, or form. In and of itself, it has no strategic value.
According to section b), the act of producing them, [the encryption keys] would similarly not involve testimonial self-incrimination.
As held in United States v. Hubbell,
Moreover, the court has long held that only the defendant in a criminal trial has any fifth amendment protection whatsoever, so the court could force production of the keys from the other side of the communication channel even if for some reason the fifth amendment prevented them from retrieving them from the defendant.
This argument is similar to the forced production of keys to a safe, which has been a debatable issue.
The difference, as I have explained before, is that they have the evidence of person C. Your right to self-incrimination only extends to not giving the police evidence against yourself.
Sure. You have the right to remain silent... and the court has the right to throw you in jail for the rest of your life for contempt of court, and it has done so. The court has shown itself perfectly willing to impose a rolling punishment for contempt- i.e., they throw you in jail, and every year they bring you out and ask you if you're willing to comply. If you're not, they throw you back in.
..Woah. Deja Vu. If I'm not mistaken, this was basically an exact copy of my first conversation as a real username on slashdot!
Given that the original intention was presumably to put you in jail in the first place, you win nothing by refusing to surrender your encryption keys.
We can play semantic games all day long. The fact of the matter is, in either Britain or the United States, you give up your crypto keys or you get thrown in jail for not giving up your crypto keys.
In any way that matters, you are obligated to surrender your cryptographic keys to the court on demand.
(Moreover, there are quite a few circumstances under which the police are not required to read you your Miranda rights- one of those is if they simply aren't going to introduce anything you say into testimony, because the physical evidence is so strong.)
No. Your mistake is that in the case of self-incrimination, the police do not have the evidence- they are looking to you to provide it. You are not obligated to do so.
However, in the case of an encrypted communication, the police are in possession of the evidence, they simply cannot read it. You are obligated to help them do that (in this case. Obviously the police have to know the evidence they want is in fact encrypted- if you were to fiddle with it so you were writing in linguistic code rather than mathematical, so they don't know what they're holding is evidence, they're not going to ask for it to be decrypted either...) and therefore this does not fall under self-incrimination.
-Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force, Skolnick, Jerome, and Fyfe, James.
Why? The government isn't making you do the labour. If you spin it up as child labour, the government bans children from playing video games.
Exactly how is this a good thing?
Then the government throws you in jail until it can forcibly decrypt the datastream, which is, if you're using a good cryptosystem, never.
That's why the british law is on the books- to prevent people from using systems exactly like this. Let's say you're charged with murder, but the evidence is locked up in this cryptostream. You can provide the keys, and have the government jail you for murder, or you can not provide the keys, the government, having no evidence, will drop the murder charge, and slam you with thirty years in prison for impropper use of crypto. You're punished the same either way.
No, I realized what he meant the first time, and he (and you) are still wrong. This has nothing to do with neutrality of networks. It has to do with taxation and regulation of international businesses, plain and simple. The fact that it has to do with the internet is purely incidental.
The two sections I bolded implied that money is indeed being paid, and further, this section does too:
How do you pay a tax on something that you're not paying for at all?
Because, according to the article (which is detail sparse), these companies are being paid for providing this service. The companies are not remitting the propper taxes, acquiring the propper licenses, etc, etc. How hard is this for some people to understand?
You've never heard of proposals to tax work done in video games? The theory is, work is being done, and value is being accumulated from it. Therefore, that value should be taxable.
That is, after all, how taxes work.
Not exactly. It's more like the government wiretapping your phone. The only reason the law exists requiring you to hand over encryption keys is because the government doesn't have the supercomputing strength availible to break it in a reasonable period of time.
The alternative, of course, is that the government can hold you without bail and put off your trial until its supercomputers finish decrypting your communications to be used as evidence.
Which would you rather?
Frankly, it's nothing at all like self-incrimination, either legally or logically.
The only similarities are at most superficial.
I don't think anybody said that. This is, however, not just some random decision by the Indian government to OMG CENSOR TEH INTARWEB TUBES! as the headline pretends.
It's a standard, relatively sane, completely understandable move. Hell, I'm 90% sure the FCC has already done this.
Now, there are a lot of reasons why it's not a good thing. But that doesn't detract from any of the above.
Or even:
...er...
Government: You're illegally calling people.
You: No, that's e-mail.
Government: Prove it, or go to jail.
You:
Government: Bye bye!
This has absolutely nothing to do with network neutrality. This has to do with companies that are doing business with Indian companies not paying Indian taxes.
That is what is making the Indian government pissed. They are not trying to restrict VOIP for the hell of it. They just want what any government wants- to regulate it and tax it, and if they can't, to make it illegal and then extract fines from it.
...that 'outdated and irrelevant business model' would be the government, seeing as they are, according to TFA, pissed off that the VOIP companies are not paying their taxes.
The short answer: Tax money. VIOP providers were not paying it, so the government is making them illegal.
Er, ever heard of batteries? It's perfectly possible to have capacatance stations built into the grid that serve as temporary UPS units for when the power slacks. Similarly, if you spread the generating stations out roughly evenly around the planet and build in enough extra capacity, (maybe 5%, I'm talking out of my ass here) the chances of cloud covering enough of that generator grid to cause a severe power loss are probably negligable.
Presumably, you'd want the capacitance spread out across the grid- not only to prevent brownouts due to lack of power production, but also to temporarily handle spikes in load and to handle temporary grid failures. Neighbourhood or even house-scale capacitance units wouldn't require much storage and could effienctly handle temporary spikes in load, like the use of (for example) a microwave or vacuumn cleaner.
Of course, if you're splitting up capacitance that way, why not split up generation that way too? Just use the power grid as a way to ship excess power around to handle temporary generation losses.
Energy from the sun at maximum potential is what, 1 KW per square meter? My house's roof is probably 15-20 square meters; 12 KW on a sunny day is great. I have absolutely no idea at the moment how much power I'm actually using, on average, (including nights, etc) but I'll bet this won't be enough to cover it. That's okay. Even if it covers half of it...
I take it then, that this vulnurability has been fixed in Word 2007?
Coincidence? I think not!
Actually, I was told (don't know how true it is) by a small author that the library did indeed pay him royalties every time someone took his book out.
Have you ever seen a turkey cooked by a high power radio transmitter? The Air Force is far more of a health risk!
Er, no. Look up the political science definition of a 'liberal'.
...why do I even bother to argue with idiotic libertarian wankers like you? If you can't understand the basic principle behind taxes, you're not intelligent enough to live in civilized society.
Obviously in your fantasy world, immigration is a word that has no meaning.
From the United Nation's 2006 Human Development Index; the top countries in the world to live in are Norway, Iceland, Australia, Ireland, Sweeden, Canada, and Japan; in the top 15, you also have Switzerland, Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Austria, and Denmark. So no. Scandinavia is, pretty much, the best place in the world to live.
Secondly, American health care is all well and good... if you're one of the top 0.0001% of Americans rich enough to go to the Mayo. For the other 99.9999%, their healthcare is subpar. Moreover, if you examine statistics, like here, you will see that the US spends close to twice as much on health care, per capita, as the next leading country- and according to the WHO, the US is rated 24th in average delivery of healthcare. The data is here.
No, it's absolutely not how it is. There is no death penalty for not paying your taxes, you fuckwit. If you THEN ATTEMPT TO COMPOUND THAT BY BEING A DANGER TO SOCIETY, you may get yourself killed. But simply not paying your taxes is not enough.
Not paying your taxes is also a specific and easily-avoided action that violates other's rights. you could just pay your fucking taxes.
Except there are no robbers. Nobody is forcing you to pay your taxes. if you don't want to pay your taxes, you can leave the country and go somewhere else. Oh, oops, there are no magical libertarian fantasy lands with no taxes? too bad, so sad. You pay your taxes, and in exchange, the government provides you services. It's an agreement both parties fulfill. The way you can stop agreeing is to leave.