Do you hear what you are saying? You are saying the people who work as NSA are the same as those at Auschwitz who killed masses of people.
I'll bite. The people at Auschwitz would have been killed if they refused to follow orders, and there would be consequences for close family as well. NSA employees could quit with little, if any, consequence beyond the loss of their pay cheque. What the employees at Auschwitz were involved in is far worse, imo, than anything we're aware of the NSA but that doesn't mean you can't make any comparison.
The people who threatened and silenced the opposition in Germany in order to help the Nazis gain total control are just as responsible for the atrocities that came later as the individuals who were ordered to execute the victims.
So yes, you also need "repression", and I think that walls that pee back are a particularly nice form of that:)
But are they really? If someone needs to take a piss then this only changes where they'll do it; the relocation could actually be worse: cars, windows, doors etc. Also, the number of people caught doesn't tell you anything, except that more people were caught, the number doing it could be decreasing but more effort is being put into catching people.
All true, but not really relevant to my point. The ball would also have had to be on a path to hit the stumps as well, thus any decision to give someone out LBW requires extrapolation of available data. Hawkeye is not used in cricket to automatically decide if a player is out or not, which is what makes this development in baseball novel. One of the reasons it should be easier to establish in baseball is because it doesn't require people to rely on the predictions of a machine (even though the machine probably does a better job of LBW calls than umpires already imo).
Why expect it to happen at all? What use would a laser capable of nothing more than blinding provide a criminal which they don't already have a better/cheaper/more reliable alternative. Armies could, but generally don't, already deploy far more effective weapons to reliably disable enemies (chemical weapons), what gap would a non-lethal laser fill even ignoring the fact that blinding laser weapons were specifically banned under the convention certain on conventional weapons back in the 1980s.
The article didn't suggest ball tracking was new, I'm not sure what led you to believe it did. It was about computers making the decision in professional sport, which afaik is new.
Cricket is actually a poor comparison as Hawkeye is used to predict where the ball would have gone, whereas in Baseball you're looking at where the ball went and defining whether it passed through the correct window. This should make it a lot less controversial as there's no debate about whether the computers extrapolation is correct or not, like there is with hawkeye in cricket.
I tend to work on the premise that if it's an important password it either doesn't go in my password manager unless it supports 2 factor authentication. I'm yet to hear an argument against password managers that isn't wrong, trivial or blatantly obvious. Yes it'd be stupid to put all the information required to get into your bank account and transfer money out onto a password manager, however none of my financial service providers allow money to be sent to an account it hasn't already been sent to without requiring some form of additional authentication (SMS code etc).
There's 230 passwords in my lastpass vault, they're all reasonably complex and none of them are the same. You can't get into any email or financial account with just the information in there. Is it perfect? Not even close, but it's vastly better than I could viably manager without it and I've made an informed decision on the trade off.
My point is that it shouldn't be a difference. If a judge is supposed to treat requests differently for warrants when the search is digital I think that's wrong, if the judge isn't supposed to be is in practice then that's clearly wrong.
I have nothing against the principal of subjects of warrants only finding out after the warrant is executed, as long as the system for issuing a warrant is robust and transparent. I don't even have an issue with a warrant being 'secret' but again this would require even more robust protections and regular independent judicial authority to maintain the secrecy. An example of this might be (I hate to use Terrorism as an example as it is so often used to justify removing rights) when evidence of a plan to commit a terrorist offence is found, using a secret warrant to access email/IM etc communications discretely and not disclosing this for a very limited period while people implicated by those communications are investigated.
Except that the defendant/accused isn't informed of the search warrant.
Effectively, this ruling says that NOBODY can challenge search warrants.
If a warrant allowed the police to enter your property when you weren't present then in theory you'd only if you could see something had changed when you got back. If that is acceptable, then I really don't see why digital records should be any different. That said, I would hope that Facebook would be allowed to tell you that your data had been accessed. My understanding is that conventional search warrants are challenged after the search (when the subject is aware of it), in which case as long as the subject was informed of a digital search they could still do this.
None of the above is intended to defend the police or the judge; I just think there should be consistency between warrants for physical and digital access.
Re:Yea- we need the GPL or we won't get sources
on
On Being Pro-GPL
·
· Score: 1
Don't be so patronizing, you're not that more smart or special in comparison to the "people" you refer to. Contrary to your claim, people have no problem with installing software,
Hypocrite much? Where exactly did he say they have a problem in your quote, he said they don't want to do it which is obviously not the same thing. Most people don't want to buy a mobile phone, then need to download software to handle core functionality like contact management etc. Hell, I don't, although I want to be able to replace the software with alternatives if I decide I want to.
So here's the question, if we're willing to do it then, is it really such a stretch to also hunt down, or encourage the hunting down of those industrial scale poachers that are also involved in murder, rape, and the funding of groups like IS?
No more of a stretch than it is to put out cash rewards for killing any number of other criminals.
Tell me where I can pick up my reward for knocking off some of the bank executives that caused the financial crisis and then I'll accept that we see violence as a solution to crime (other than crime that involves killing Africans who we care less about than the animals that live nearby).
When exactly did I police content. I get plenty more than ignorant fools who jump to unsubstantiated conclusions tyvm. I'm just not stupid enough to think a game about killing people is going to win in a competition which, to use its own description:
Imagine Cup is a global student technology program and competition that provides... solutions that can change the way we live, work and play.
If 'politically correct' means not wanting to award a prize to a game encouraging vigilante, or state sponsored, murder of low level minor criminals then I suppose that's what you should call it, personally I prefer 'not being a dick'.
Just because poaching is a major issue doesn't mean that routinely killing poachers is the best answer. We don't encourage people to stalk and kill murderers, rapists etc.
It would make more sense to charge people you don't 'know' to receive email their email, and even that doesn't make sense as it would push spammers towards even more focus on hacking into other people's email addresses or servers where they wouldn't be the one paying.
Email doesn't need to have a charge to dissuade spam, the amount of spam is falling and if there was a concerted effort to find and prosecute a much higher proportion of spammers it would fall much further.
Everything isn't about you. The questioner clearly doesn't spend most of the day standing up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that someone who stands up most of the day neither needs, or likely wants, a standing desk.
It isn't stupid if their intention is to effectively use the onerous cost of defending the lawsuit to strong-arm the defendant into doing what they want.
WTF have your shares got to do with your desire to deliberately trash the life savings of millions of taxi drivers in the western world?. They entered into a contract with the government, if the government breaks that contract by changing the law then drivers should definitely be fairly compensated.
No they didn't. They bought a medallion off the previous owner. That doesn't mean they have any contractual arrangement with the government. So stop making up strawmen, and attacking others by claiming they are motivated by trying to ruin other people's lives when there is no evidence what so ever to support your hyperbole and lies.
If I buy shares in a Tobacco firms with my pension money and the government passes laws virtually taxing them out of existence it is exactly the same legally as the government removing medallion restrictions (in most cases).
There's some validity to the point, but given that this topic is about spying on French presidents I think the debate has been, and should remain, focused on the logic of spying between nation states.
That statement is just about directly opposite the established and well informed version of events that is almost universally accepted. The Austro-Hungarians was keen for a military conflict with vastly weaker Balkan opposition, but none of the world powers went into 1914 eager for a major conflict.
Spying between nations is a good thing, because it means everyone knows more about each others intentions and motivations.
Bollocks. There's been plenty of spying since pretty much the moment secrets have existed; it hasn't stopped war, and the idea that if that spying had simply been 'better' everything would be different is completely lacking a compelling case.
If we didn't have any spying then we'd have had no one claiming they had found evidence Saddam had WMD to justify the Iraq war; so explain exactly how the billions of dollars spent on spying helped us there.
Even if you could find theoretical examples to try and demonstrate spying stopping wars it'd be worth nothing. The existence of spying will always be accompanied by counter-measures and misinformation which inherently limits the quality of spying.
People are more cynical of the impact, I'm not so sure it has much to do with will power.
Personally I think Google's policies like this are harming them. I know that I think very hard about using Google related services (and a Google controlled URL would certainly count) because although I think they make a lot of very good things I have 0% trust that they won't completely re-arrange them or shut them down
The very fact you think Google is going to need to schedule production downtime for a change of this nature given the ridiculously large changes they regularly make without it just highlights your ignorance or reliance on hyperbole to try and make a point.
This isn't some either/or situation. Google wasn't put in a position where the two options were 1/ Have the site ruined by domain equating parasites or 2/ Automatically and irreversibly kick users who've been on the service for a decade off their URL.
This is a dickish policy by Google. If Google wants to automatically remove accounts pretending to be a brand fine, but that isn't what happened here.
For example, only the ones that actually mention vanilla bean or vanilla extract specifically actually even contain any vanilla, and many have so many stabilizers they don't even melt....and this wasn't "ice cream" it was just a single flavor they compared.
It's one of the things I've never gotten about America. Mickey Mouse has to be defended to ensure only the real Disney thing exists forever (it seems) but it's perfectly ok for something labelled chocolate to not be chocolate, or for something labelled as Champagne to not be from Champagne or even made using the correct method...
When other firms have decided that protecting their bottom line is best done by giving the government everything and anything they ask for I'm willing to cut them a little slack and give them the credit for fighting to protect user data even if, heaven forbid, that might be in their best interests.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bite. The people at Auschwitz would have been killed if they refused to follow orders, and there would be consequences for close family as well. NSA employees could quit with little, if any, consequence beyond the loss of their pay cheque. What the employees at Auschwitz were involved in is far worse, imo, than anything we're aware of the NSA but that doesn't mean you can't make any comparison.
The people who threatened and silenced the opposition in Germany in order to help the Nazis gain total control are just as responsible for the atrocities that came later as the individuals who were ordered to execute the victims.
But are they really? If someone needs to take a piss then this only changes where they'll do it; the relocation could actually be worse: cars, windows, doors etc. Also, the number of people caught doesn't tell you anything, except that more people were caught, the number doing it could be decreasing but more effort is being put into catching people.
All true, but not really relevant to my point. The ball would also have had to be on a path to hit the stumps as well, thus any decision to give someone out LBW requires extrapolation of available data. Hawkeye is not used in cricket to automatically decide if a player is out or not, which is what makes this development in baseball novel. One of the reasons it should be easier to establish in baseball is because it doesn't require people to rely on the predictions of a machine (even though the machine probably does a better job of LBW calls than umpires already imo).
Why expect it to happen at all? What use would a laser capable of nothing more than blinding provide a criminal which they don't already have a better/cheaper/more reliable alternative. Armies could, but generally don't, already deploy far more effective weapons to reliably disable enemies (chemical weapons), what gap would a non-lethal laser fill even ignoring the fact that blinding laser weapons were specifically banned under the convention certain on conventional weapons back in the 1980s.
The article didn't suggest ball tracking was new, I'm not sure what led you to believe it did. It was about computers making the decision in professional sport, which afaik is new.
Cricket is actually a poor comparison as Hawkeye is used to predict where the ball would have gone, whereas in Baseball you're looking at where the ball went and defining whether it passed through the correct window. This should make it a lot less controversial as there's no debate about whether the computers extrapolation is correct or not, like there is with hawkeye in cricket.
I tend to work on the premise that if it's an important password it either doesn't go in my password manager unless it supports 2 factor authentication. I'm yet to hear an argument against password managers that isn't wrong, trivial or blatantly obvious. Yes it'd be stupid to put all the information required to get into your bank account and transfer money out onto a password manager, however none of my financial service providers allow money to be sent to an account it hasn't already been sent to without requiring some form of additional authentication (SMS code etc).
There's 230 passwords in my lastpass vault, they're all reasonably complex and none of them are the same. You can't get into any email or financial account with just the information in there. Is it perfect? Not even close, but it's vastly better than I could viably manager without it and I've made an informed decision on the trade off.
My point is that it shouldn't be a difference. If a judge is supposed to treat requests differently for warrants when the search is digital I think that's wrong, if the judge isn't supposed to be is in practice then that's clearly wrong.
I have nothing against the principal of subjects of warrants only finding out after the warrant is executed, as long as the system for issuing a warrant is robust and transparent. I don't even have an issue with a warrant being 'secret' but again this would require even more robust protections and regular independent judicial authority to maintain the secrecy. An example of this might be (I hate to use Terrorism as an example as it is so often used to justify removing rights) when evidence of a plan to commit a terrorist offence is found, using a secret warrant to access email/IM etc communications discretely and not disclosing this for a very limited period while people implicated by those communications are investigated.
If a warrant allowed the police to enter your property when you weren't present then in theory you'd only if you could see something had changed when you got back. If that is acceptable, then I really don't see why digital records should be any different. That said, I would hope that Facebook would be allowed to tell you that your data had been accessed. My understanding is that conventional search warrants are challenged after the search (when the subject is aware of it), in which case as long as the subject was informed of a digital search they could still do this.
None of the above is intended to defend the police or the judge; I just think there should be consistency between warrants for physical and digital access.
Hypocrite much? Where exactly did he say they have a problem in your quote, he said they don't want to do it which is obviously not the same thing. Most people don't want to buy a mobile phone, then need to download software to handle core functionality like contact management etc. Hell, I don't, although I want to be able to replace the software with alternatives if I decide I want to.
If code is still being used in a production environment then it is still used and thus not obsolete, even though it is outdated.
If 'politically correct' means not wanting to award a prize to a game encouraging vigilante, or state sponsored, murder of low level minor criminals then I suppose that's what you should call it, personally I prefer 'not being a dick'.
Just because poaching is a major issue doesn't mean that routinely killing poachers is the best answer. We don't encourage people to stalk and kill murderers, rapists etc.
It would make more sense to charge people you don't 'know' to receive email their email, and even that doesn't make sense as it would push spammers towards even more focus on hacking into other people's email addresses or servers where they wouldn't be the one paying.
Email doesn't need to have a charge to dissuade spam, the amount of spam is falling and if there was a concerted effort to find and prosecute a much higher proportion of spammers it would fall much further.
Everything isn't about you. The questioner clearly doesn't spend most of the day standing up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that someone who stands up most of the day neither needs, or likely wants, a standing desk.
It isn't stupid if their intention is to effectively use the onerous cost of defending the lawsuit to strong-arm the defendant into doing what they want.
No they didn't. They bought a medallion off the previous owner. That doesn't mean they have any contractual arrangement with the government. So stop making up strawmen, and attacking others by claiming they are motivated by trying to ruin other people's lives when there is no evidence what so ever to support your hyperbole and lies.
If I buy shares in a Tobacco firms with my pension money and the government passes laws virtually taxing them out of existence it is exactly the same legally as the government removing medallion restrictions (in most cases).
There's some validity to the point, but given that this topic is about spying on French presidents I think the debate has been, and should remain, focused on the logic of spying between nation states.
That statement is just about directly opposite the established and well informed version of events that is almost universally accepted. The Austro-Hungarians was keen for a military conflict with vastly weaker Balkan opposition, but none of the world powers went into 1914 eager for a major conflict.
Bollocks. There's been plenty of spying since pretty much the moment secrets have existed; it hasn't stopped war, and the idea that if that spying had simply been 'better' everything would be different is completely lacking a compelling case.
If we didn't have any spying then we'd have had no one claiming they had found evidence Saddam had WMD to justify the Iraq war; so explain exactly how the billions of dollars spent on spying helped us there.
Even if you could find theoretical examples to try and demonstrate spying stopping wars it'd be worth nothing. The existence of spying will always be accompanied by counter-measures and misinformation which inherently limits the quality of spying.
People are more cynical of the impact, I'm not so sure it has much to do with will power.
Personally I think Google's policies like this are harming them. I know that I think very hard about using Google related services (and a Google controlled URL would certainly count) because although I think they make a lot of very good things I have 0% trust that they won't completely re-arrange them or shut them down
The very fact you think Google is going to need to schedule production downtime for a change of this nature given the ridiculously large changes they regularly make without it just highlights your ignorance or reliance on hyperbole to try and make a point.
This isn't some either/or situation. Google wasn't put in a position where the two options were 1/ Have the site ruined by domain equating parasites or 2/ Automatically and irreversibly kick users who've been on the service for a decade off their URL.
This is a dickish policy by Google. If Google wants to automatically remove accounts pretending to be a brand fine, but that isn't what happened here.
It's one of the things I've never gotten about America. Mickey Mouse has to be defended to ensure only the real Disney thing exists forever (it seems) but it's perfectly ok for something labelled chocolate to not be chocolate, or for something labelled as Champagne to not be from Champagne or even made using the correct method...
When other firms have decided that protecting their bottom line is best done by giving the government everything and anything they ask for I'm willing to cut them a little slack and give them the credit for fighting to protect user data even if, heaven forbid, that might be in their best interests.