Unless you have a cunning solution to the fact Americans are disproportionately more likely to kill each other that you can implemented PDQ then maybe taking away the easiest way for them to do it makes sense until then? Highlighting that other countries can own guns, and be responsible at the same time, just highlights the fact the problem is 'Americans with guns' not inherently guns.
And this scheme doesn't affect the freedom of those who want it - they just have to make a bit more of an effort. What's not to like about it?
The issue with your argument is that it is based on the idea that somehow it is better to force people who want an unfiltered internet to ask for it rather than let the people who want a censored version of the internet to ask for it. If the process is so easy then surely the current 'ask for censoring' model works fine?
The issue with an opt-out filter is that it forces people to register somewhere that they want access. Regardless of whether I want to access porn, shocking videos, very bad taste jokes or whatever I don't want to have to highlight my desire to do so in order to be able to.
Fining public bodies makes plenty of sense if they are remotely well run (a subject for another day). Whether it is appropriate or not would depend on things like if the organisation authorised or allowed the contractor to be given the pc or whether the employee took it without permission (in which case lets call a theft a theft). Was the data on the laptop stored sufficiently securely? Most UK government departments have policies, and sometimes are required, to encrypt discs. If it wasn't secured then maybe they got fined for that. If the contractor is willing to admit that he verbally agreed a contract which involved destroying the data then the NHS has the option of pursuing him in a civil prosecution.
I would suggest that whatever personality trait there is that makes you think the world is out to destroy you for working hard and being good probably has a lot more to do with your employment problems than your hypothesised reason does. If you really are that good good self-employed and charge by results: Everyone likes getting what they want, done well by a 3rd party. You definitely couldn't blame that failing on people not liking you being 'good'
Or perhaps it will take an asteroid hurdling towards Earth for you to side with "the feds" and work together on a solution?
I work together with the feds all the time. I pay taxes, I follow the law, I obey legitimate instructions by officials, police officers and the military. It takes massive hardship for me, or other individuals, not to work 'with' the state. The question is what does it take to make the state work with me, and frankly I doubt an asteroid would do it!
I don't agree with raiding a company for providing subtitles; that said do you really think anything more than a tiny fraction of users are putting the subtitles against legally owned material?
Wow that'd be really hard... no wait; now I remember, I haven't paid to watch a Tom Cruise film since he became a cheerleader for a pretend religious pyramid scheme.
I boycotted Nestle in the past because of what they were doing with baby formula in Africa. No doubt some people here would think I should have ignored that because in their opinion it wasn't related to the chocolate I wanted so I should just ignore it.
Do you think it would be morally right for an employer to fire an employee for expressing a political view he disagreed with because he doesn't want to financially support "the enemy?"
No; however I wouldn't find it any less wrong than the employer voting for a party/policy that discriminates against a section of society either. Fortunately what we're talking about here isn't the same as an employee being fired it's about buying products where a proportion of the profits will go on political lobbying that I strongly disagree with.
When our country is READY to accept this issue without further polarizing us, it will pass an amendment.
Your country wasn't able to accept the abolition of slavery without polarisation, was Lincoln wrong? Some things are wrong, cannot be supported and should not be ignored because many other people don't agree. Discriminating against people because of their sexual beliefs is one such issue.
Yeah because everyone who uses a computer after me also has either my phone and unlock code to get to Google authenticator or the pad of 10 one-use passwords in my wallet; just because you can't be trusted to use a public computer safely doesn't mean no one else can.
It's a risk in any job where you have responsibility for money in this day and age. Hopefully what this will highlight is that you need to follow procedures and document transactions because if/when the system fucks up it will be your ability to put together 'the real truth' from the records that will keep you out of jail. A finance system can say you stole £100,000 yesterday, but if you can show categorically that the money was never there to steal you're safe; if your records are incomplete then it'll be taken as evidence against you.
Are you eligible to vote in any country or any other form of election? By the false premise you're proposing you are to blame and should be treated as such, for everything that country/group does.
Let's assume that for the sake of the example an equivalent piece of software was available at a viable price and was open source.
A small shopkeeper (what most postmasters in the UK are these days) is shown to have a considerable amount of missing money. They are prosecuted by the post office and a jury convicts them. The fact the 'computer' says the money is missing is a part of the evidence against them but if the 'know' they didn't take the money and it can't possibly have been anyone else who works for them then surely they could already pay auditors to track the transaction records and show they don't make sense right? Except that would assume that they think to do it, are confident it will prove their innocence and can afford the considerable cost upfront.
Yes, in theory, open source lets you check. However a bug in a complex accountancy system is likely to be very difficult and if you didn't find the bug then it could actually strengthen the evidence against you.
I like open source; it is not, however, a panacea to all the worlds ills. The bigger question here is how a prosecution started by faulty accounting software ended in a conviction. Unless the defence did a very poor job, the prosecution overstated their case or the jury mis-applied 'reasonable doubt' surely this shouldn't have happened.
actually their taxi license depends on them taking you where you ask.
It depends on country and region. In the UK a black cab style taxi is almost certainly licensed on the basis that they will go where asked. Other taxis can select fares but aren't allowed, by the rules, to pick fares up off the street. That means that to get a non-black cab taxi you would normally phone the taxi company and tell them where you are going, they are allowed to decline the job or charge a premium.
It's based on the premise of knowing the future, did you expect it to be entirely factual? If we 'knew' an asteroid was going to hit and destroy the earth in 200 years you can bet many of the barriers to co-operation between nations would be put aside given the common threat. Given the decimation native Americans suffered from disease and mistreatment you can bet they would have wanted nothing to do with westerners had they known.
True but I can understand why people have an issue. Someone is pointing a camera at you constantly and you don't know if they are recording or not. A big part of the reason why video cameras have an active light is to inform those being recorded and it seems to work quite well, adding a small light to glass might deal with some of the concerns.
You're exactly right that, although we should remain vigilant, this isn't likely to happen as decreed. I've changed ISP before because of filtering restrictions that didn't limit me personally (piracy related) and I'll move again for the same reason. There's plenty of stuff available online that I personally dislike but tolerating it is basically the foundation of freedom.
Normally I'd be completely confident that this kind of nonsense would go nowhere, but with the conservatives now trying to compete with UKIP to be the least tolerant party in the UK who knows. We're already seeing efforts to link porn availability to people visiting child porn, and to link viewing child porn to actively abusing children; both of which are based on emotional pleas rather than an evidence based attempt to protect vulnerable children.
I completely agree. I don't think the police are all perfect but this kind of change may help some of the better ones do their job better (by stopping some of the BS abuse claims) and make it harder for some of the bad ones to abuse their position.
If a police officer is recording me then he was already watching me. The word of a policeman is generally given a lot of weight in UK courts so if a police man says he saw me do something then my word alone may not be enough to get me off even if I'm innocent. If officers could record then every time they don't it decreases the authority of their position. Is it perfect? No. Will it be abused in some way? Almost certainly. Will it be worse than the current situation? I really fail to see how.
Take a look at what those suspected of terrorism related activities are actually doing... no wait, that information isn't available. What we do know from media coverage is that nothing more than owning certain documents or associating with other individuals is enough to get people on that list.
Besides which, define cripple. Leaving it so ridiculously open as whatever the services say they need may be popular with some of the public but it creates more issues than it solves. A nut job with a knife kills someone in the street and it's terrorism, a crazy woman walks into a mosque a few days later with petrol to try and burn it down and we don't talk about terrorism. Why? Because one of them was a muslim and the other one wasn't. If we keep treating so many people as though they are second class, dangerous citizens just because of where they choose to pray then we shouldn't be shocked if a tiny fraction of them come to despise us for it.
Sorry would that be the same 'conservatives' who drastically cut back the ability of the government to hold people without charge that was brought in under our 'left wing' Labour government? The same conservatives who had an MP stand down to hold a by-election based on a privacy as a protest as the rapid erosion of privacy rules under Labour? The same conservatives who refused to put in place laws to further control the press when both Labour and the Lib Dems were demanding it?
Only the politically ignorant or cognitively challenged would think that where a party sites on the political spectrum defines their views on privacy and surveillance.
If you want to rephrase/salvage what this Fox News watching right wing drone was trying to express
You'd come over as marginally less deluded if you didn't jump on a post which clearly didn't have a bias toward either end of the political spectrum for being biased and do so by using clichéd national stereotypes which don't even apply; but hell if you intended to inform or influence anyone rather than rant you'd of spotted that it wasn't working and tried a little civility long ago.
If Dillards KNOWS about the crotchcams, but can't easily remove them and make the booths camera free, but fails to inform their patrons and ask that they forgo the use of the changing booths until they are fixed and safe, what does that say about the store?
Can we stop with retarded analogies already. There is a difference between asking people not to use a changing room and telling people not to use their operating system because of theoretical risk. Not only is the situation entirely different to your analogy but it doesn't even address the core points; in your analogy there is nothing related to the increased risk of people exploiting the issue once it is publicly announced; ironically because you suggested that it is the vendor that knows of the issue (which is the whole fucking point about disclosing privately first!).
"Security through Obscurity" refers to the false assumption that my ROT13 encryption algorithm is any better if I don't tell you that I'm using ROT13.
However; it would be better even in such a loaded example. If my security method was to post based on a cypher of the current stock market movements then although all the information is public the fact that no one else knew that is what I am doing would make it an extremely effective encryption method. I would never suggest using security by obscurity but that doesn't mean it is entirely ineffective. Beyond which it was a poster suggesting that not releasing the exploit publicly was 'security by obscurity' so it is pretty obvious we're not talking about it in that strict sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you have a cunning solution to the fact Americans are disproportionately more likely to kill each other that you can implemented PDQ then maybe taking away the easiest way for them to do it makes sense until then? Highlighting that other countries can own guns, and be responsible at the same time, just highlights the fact the problem is 'Americans with guns' not inherently guns.
The issue with your argument is that it is based on the idea that somehow it is better to force people who want an unfiltered internet to ask for it rather than let the people who want a censored version of the internet to ask for it. If the process is so easy then surely the current 'ask for censoring' model works fine?
The issue with an opt-out filter is that it forces people to register somewhere that they want access. Regardless of whether I want to access porn, shocking videos, very bad taste jokes or whatever I don't want to have to highlight my desire to do so in order to be able to.
Fining public bodies makes plenty of sense if they are remotely well run (a subject for another day). Whether it is appropriate or not would depend on things like if the organisation authorised or allowed the contractor to be given the pc or whether the employee took it without permission (in which case lets call a theft a theft). Was the data on the laptop stored sufficiently securely? Most UK government departments have policies, and sometimes are required, to encrypt discs. If it wasn't secured then maybe they got fined for that. If the contractor is willing to admit that he verbally agreed a contract which involved destroying the data then the NHS has the option of pursuing him in a civil prosecution.
I would suggest that whatever personality trait there is that makes you think the world is out to destroy you for working hard and being good probably has a lot more to do with your employment problems than your hypothesised reason does. If you really are that good good self-employed and charge by results: Everyone likes getting what they want, done well by a 3rd party. You definitely couldn't blame that failing on people not liking you being 'good'
I work together with the feds all the time. I pay taxes, I follow the law, I obey legitimate instructions by officials, police officers and the military. It takes massive hardship for me, or other individuals, not to work 'with' the state. The question is what does it take to make the state work with me, and frankly I doubt an asteroid would do it!
I don't agree with raiding a company for providing subtitles; that said do you really think anything more than a tiny fraction of users are putting the subtitles against legally owned material?
Not sure if troll, ignorant douché or both.
Wow that'd be really hard... no wait; now I remember, I haven't paid to watch a Tom Cruise film since he became a cheerleader for a pretend religious pyramid scheme.
I boycotted Nestle in the past because of what they were doing with baby formula in Africa. No doubt some people here would think I should have ignored that because in their opinion it wasn't related to the chocolate I wanted so I should just ignore it.
No; however I wouldn't find it any less wrong than the employer voting for a party/policy that discriminates against a section of society either. Fortunately what we're talking about here isn't the same as an employee being fired it's about buying products where a proportion of the profits will go on political lobbying that I strongly disagree with.
Your country wasn't able to accept the abolition of slavery without polarisation, was Lincoln wrong? Some things are wrong, cannot be supported and should not be ignored because many other people don't agree. Discriminating against people because of their sexual beliefs is one such issue.
Was really hoping someone would point that out. Thanks Sribe.
Yeah because everyone who uses a computer after me also has either my phone and unlock code to get to Google authenticator or the pad of 10 one-use passwords in my wallet; just because you can't be trusted to use a public computer safely doesn't mean no one else can.
It's a risk in any job where you have responsibility for money in this day and age. Hopefully what this will highlight is that you need to follow procedures and document transactions because if/when the system fucks up it will be your ability to put together 'the real truth' from the records that will keep you out of jail. A finance system can say you stole £100,000 yesterday, but if you can show categorically that the money was never there to steal you're safe; if your records are incomplete then it'll be taken as evidence against you.
Are you eligible to vote in any country or any other form of election? By the false premise you're proposing you are to blame and should be treated as such, for everything that country/group does.
Let's assume that for the sake of the example an equivalent piece of software was available at a viable price and was open source.
A small shopkeeper (what most postmasters in the UK are these days) is shown to have a considerable amount of missing money. They are prosecuted by the post office and a jury convicts them. The fact the 'computer' says the money is missing is a part of the evidence against them but if the 'know' they didn't take the money and it can't possibly have been anyone else who works for them then surely they could already pay auditors to track the transaction records and show they don't make sense right? Except that would assume that they think to do it, are confident it will prove their innocence and can afford the considerable cost upfront.
Yes, in theory, open source lets you check. However a bug in a complex accountancy system is likely to be very difficult and if you didn't find the bug then it could actually strengthen the evidence against you.
I like open source; it is not, however, a panacea to all the worlds ills. The bigger question here is how a prosecution started by faulty accounting software ended in a conviction. Unless the defence did a very poor job, the prosecution overstated their case or the jury mis-applied 'reasonable doubt' surely this shouldn't have happened.
It depends on country and region. In the UK a black cab style taxi is almost certainly licensed on the basis that they will go where asked. Other taxis can select fares but aren't allowed, by the rules, to pick fares up off the street. That means that to get a non-black cab taxi you would normally phone the taxi company and tell them where you are going, they are allowed to decline the job or charge a premium.
It's based on the premise of knowing the future, did you expect it to be entirely factual? If we 'knew' an asteroid was going to hit and destroy the earth in 200 years you can bet many of the barriers to co-operation between nations would be put aside given the common threat. Given the decimation native Americans suffered from disease and mistreatment you can bet they would have wanted nothing to do with westerners had they known.
True but I can understand why people have an issue. Someone is pointing a camera at you constantly and you don't know if they are recording or not. A big part of the reason why video cameras have an active light is to inform those being recorded and it seems to work quite well, adding a small light to glass might deal with some of the concerns.
You're exactly right that, although we should remain vigilant, this isn't likely to happen as decreed. I've changed ISP before because of filtering restrictions that didn't limit me personally (piracy related) and I'll move again for the same reason. There's plenty of stuff available online that I personally dislike but tolerating it is basically the foundation of freedom.
Normally I'd be completely confident that this kind of nonsense would go nowhere, but with the conservatives now trying to compete with UKIP to be the least tolerant party in the UK who knows. We're already seeing efforts to link porn availability to people visiting child porn, and to link viewing child porn to actively abusing children; both of which are based on emotional pleas rather than an evidence based attempt to protect vulnerable children.
I completely agree. I don't think the police are all perfect but this kind of change may help some of the better ones do their job better (by stopping some of the BS abuse claims) and make it harder for some of the bad ones to abuse their position.
If a police officer is recording me then he was already watching me. The word of a policeman is generally given a lot of weight in UK courts so if a police man says he saw me do something then my word alone may not be enough to get me off even if I'm innocent. If officers could record then every time they don't it decreases the authority of their position. Is it perfect? No. Will it be abused in some way? Almost certainly. Will it be worse than the current situation? I really fail to see how.
Take a look at what those suspected of terrorism related activities are actually doing... no wait, that information isn't available. What we do know from media coverage is that nothing more than owning certain documents or associating with other individuals is enough to get people on that list.
Besides which, define cripple. Leaving it so ridiculously open as whatever the services say they need may be popular with some of the public but it creates more issues than it solves. A nut job with a knife kills someone in the street and it's terrorism, a crazy woman walks into a mosque a few days later with petrol to try and burn it down and we don't talk about terrorism. Why? Because one of them was a muslim and the other one wasn't. If we keep treating so many people as though they are second class, dangerous citizens just because of where they choose to pray then we shouldn't be shocked if a tiny fraction of them come to despise us for it.
Sorry would that be the same 'conservatives' who drastically cut back the ability of the government to hold people without charge that was brought in under our 'left wing' Labour government? The same conservatives who had an MP stand down to hold a by-election based on a privacy as a protest as the rapid erosion of privacy rules under Labour? The same conservatives who refused to put in place laws to further control the press when both Labour and the Lib Dems were demanding it?
Only the politically ignorant or cognitively challenged would think that where a party sites on the political spectrum defines their views on privacy and surveillance.
You'd come over as marginally less deluded if you didn't jump on a post which clearly didn't have a bias toward either end of the political spectrum for being biased and do so by using clichéd national stereotypes which don't even apply; but hell if you intended to inform or influence anyone rather than rant you'd of spotted that it wasn't working and tried a little civility long ago.
Can we stop with retarded analogies already. There is a difference between asking people not to use a changing room and telling people not to use their operating system because of theoretical risk. Not only is the situation entirely different to your analogy but it doesn't even address the core points; in your analogy there is nothing related to the increased risk of people exploiting the issue once it is publicly announced; ironically because you suggested that it is the vendor that knows of the issue (which is the whole fucking point about disclosing privately first!).
However; it would be better even in such a loaded example. If my security method was to post based on a cypher of the current stock market movements then although all the information is public the fact that no one else knew that is what I am doing would make it an extremely effective encryption method. I would never suggest using security by obscurity but that doesn't mean it is entirely ineffective. Beyond which it was a poster suggesting that not releasing the exploit publicly was 'security by obscurity' so it is pretty obvious we're not talking about it in that strict sense.