Seems like encryption systems need to have two passwords; one that decrypts the volume and another that wipes the keys and images a fresh filesystem. When they compel you to enter your password, you enter the "destroy code."
What would be the use of that if you don't want to commit a crime and hide the evidence?
So you're telling me that the Judge has power to order you to do literally anything during a trial? such as stick a knife in yourself or someone else? and if you refuse you are now in contempt and can go to prison for ever?
If you talk nonsense like that in court, then the judge hasn't just the right, but a legal obligation to stick a knife in your eye.
So if you make the password itself something that would be incriminating, you could legitimately withhold it?
Possibly. Of course "I killed seven girls" as a password is not incriminating - it shows that you are a rather sick individual but not that you killed anyone. "Seven bodies are buried in my garden under the cherry tree" would be incriminating if it were true and the police checked.
But a much more plausible case is when it is known that either you or your best friend is the owner of the encrypted drive, but it isn't known which one. Then providing the password would be _very_ incriminating and you wouldn't be required to provide it. And of course you couldn't be held in contempt because there's only a 50% chance that you are withholding the password.
What if it isn't even actually encrypted? "I see a lot of files on here that aren't.mp3,.jpg or.gif files, they have weird extensions like.class. They're obviously encrypted, decrypt them and show us the illegal stuff they're encrypted as!"
That's why you have expert witnesses and lawyers. No expert witness would make such a claim, because they would never be an expert witness again, and no lawyer would let them get away with it.
No state has the right to compel assistance in one's own prosecution, constitution or no.
Sure they do. For example, if the police comes to your home with a search warrant, you have to assist them by opening the door. In that particular situation, the police doesn't mind if you don't assist and you will not be prosecuted; they feel that having to pay for a broken door that stopped them for five seconds is enough punishment.
You have to provide keys or code for a safe if they have a warrant. You have to unlock encrypted drives if they have a warrant. What you don't have to do is give evidence against yourself. Unlocking an encrypted drive that they already know was used by you is not giving evidence against yourself.
Think of the ramifications, the court claims you saw something with no evidence of proof of that claim, you say you did not and they imprison you until you say what they want you to say.
You see, the analogy breaks down at the point where evidence was found on his Mac, and the two encrypted drives were connected to his Mac. If you show me a random encrypted disk drive, I have no idea what the password is. If you show me an encrypted disk drive that was connected to my Mac, either I know the password, or it's stored in the keychain of the Mac so you can access it with the keychain password.
And that's the situation this man is in. They ask for the password to an encrypted drive that he has been using.
A strobe gif in an email is illegal, really? How are you going to prosecute that?
Well, you have the police investigate, they find evidence that you sent this email, then they find evidence that you sent it with the intent of hurting someone, then you get sent, to court, then you get convicted, then you go to jail. That's how this gets prosecuted.
This post is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
You might want to express that the post is dedicated to (1) mum, (2) dad, (3) Ayn Rand, (4) God. Or you might want to express that you are the result of sex between Ayn Rand and God. The sentence as written could express both. So clearly you must use two changed sentences to express the two different statements without ambiguity.
If you wanted to express the first statement, you could do that in very slightly bad English but unambiguous with a tiny little change by writing "my parents, Ayn Rand, and God". If you wanted to express the second statement in a different way, a bigger change would be needed, like "Ayn Rand and God, my parents" or "Ayn Rand and God, who are my parents".
But since the change for the first meaning would have been much smaller, that change would have been made if you wanted the first meaning.
Drivers win. An additional comma "packing for shipment, or distribution", would have meant they lose.
Handy if you're a developer who has to develop for both platforms.
If you are an iPhone developer, you have multiple iPhones and iPads, running multiple iOS versions, and if you are an Android developer, I would think that you have multiple Android devices running multiple Android versions. This thing is of basically no use for the developer.
Good luck netting any real compensation after paying all the lawyers' costs. That's assuming you can even win.
To be brutal, he is now a single man without a wife needing expensive treatments, so he should be doing reasonably well financially. And his stated goal is not to get money, but to hit this company, which behaved in a way that he cannot forgive, as hard as he possibly can.
I don't think you understand the concept of "lock out - tag out".
It seems that she was working on the robot in location 130, and that robot was absolutely safely shut down - and it didn't occur to anyone that the robot in location 140 could reach far enough to kill someone in location 130.
They were most likely properly trained, and handled the danger that they were aware of correctly. Unfortunately, they didn't see the other danger.
The point is, getting around encryption is too costly to do it on a mass scale, so they can only really do it for the small portion of targets judged worth it.
As an example, when you use https some secret code is negotiated between you and the server. There are some random numbers that should be used in the process, and apparently lots of servers use the same random numbers and don't change them. As a result, about 10% of all https at some point used the same random numbers.
In this particular case, there is an unconfirmed rumour that the NSA with an investment > $100 million managed to "crack" this one random number so that any https using one of those servers becomes crackable. That's $100 million, and that investment can be wiped out in a second by using a different random number. That gives you an idea of the cost of breaking encryption.
My daughter worked Tech Support when she was in college. They were told that if they happened to find child porn they were supposed to report it, although they weren't tasked with actively searching for it. The reason being that if you are aware of a crime, you are supposed to report it; otherwise you risk being guilty of conspiracy.
Whoever told her that was absolutely correct. If you find child porn (as a technician or in any other way) you need to report to avoid becoming a criminal yourself.
On the other hand, you have no right as a technician to search someone's computer, whether they are an innocent citizen, or a pedophile. Assume you signed a contract that you won't search a computer, with a $10,000 penalty if you do. And you search it and find child porn. Now you are in a right mess, because the only legal thing you can do is report it to the police and pay the $10,000 penalty.
My guess: when Uber submits documentation for road safety, patents, copyrights, etc - that information could be submitted to a third-party arbiter to verify that the technology used is unique and not infringing upon Google's patents.
I think this is not about patents, but about trade secrets. Patents are openly published and give the patent holder a time-limited monopoly on the invention. Trade secrets are kept secret. Others are allowed to invent and then use the exact same thing, but they are not allowed to steal the secret and then use it.
Traveling back in time to "kill Hitler" has become so synonymous with time travel fantasies that it's unlikely future time travelers would actually do it for fear of divulging the existence of their powers and contaminating their preferred timeline. If people in current time knew they were at the mercy of time travelers, they could protect themselves by destroying records and implementing pervasive anonymity (ala technologies like Tor).
1933: Time traveller arrives in Germany, kills Hitler.
1960: German nuclear bomb destroys New York.
That's actually a logical possibility. The same things might have happened in Germany, but at a slower speed and with less madness at the top.
The FBI does not care about prevention. They care about locking up people. Hence this is exactly as they want it.
Not in this case. The caught a fish, a nasty fish, but a little fish, so they rather throw him back into the lake to have a chance to catch bigger fish.
In this case, a known pedophile isn't going to jail, but on the other hand, it's very unlikely that he does the same thing again.
I really don't care which one someone prefers, what I can't stand is not having a standard translation between the two. I wish IDE's, programming languages, and text editors would just pick an arbitrary value like 4 spaces = 1 tab and stick to it. Then, we could let people use whichever they choose.
Here's what Xcode does: You have several settings. One whether you prefer tabs or spaces in your source code. Two how many spaces does a tab equal. Three how much indentation. And four what pressing tab does.
Now the practical reality is: If you don't pick tab = 4 spaces and indent = 4 spaces then you're off my team. I'm not talking to you. The last point, what pressing tab does exactly (indenting or inserting a tab character) is up to you. The first point, whether tab or spaces are preferred, make basically no difference - except if two people with different settings edit a file, you will have gratiutious changes. Select all, copy, paste will change everything to your preferences, and then you are in diff hell. So the whole team _must_ agree on one setting.
by the way, there's NOTHING wrong with leading tabs... as long as you ALWAYS use tabs. Convenient thing is that if I like 2 space indentation and you like 4 space indentation, we can both have what we want, as long as no one is converting leading tabs to spaces.
No, that doesn't work. Indentation isn't used only for the nesting level. It's also used for the indentation of second and further lines of multi-line statements.
I do get robocalls from my bank about suspected fraud with my Visa card. So far it was always Ok, but I would like to get these calls. And there's no need for a human to call.
But the kind of interesting thing here is that discriminating on things based on language skills (deemed to be directly related to the job here by the government), are usually limitations of the law *allowing* employer's to be discriminatory. In this case, the government is *requiring* the employer (Uber) to discriminate and apply these standards.
In this case, Uber states quite clearly that they are not an employer. And the "speak English" test is to determine whether you are allowed to drive people around in England. Uber is clearly allowed to hire someone who only speaks Indian, and put them on a plane to India where they can drive. Or hire them as a car washer. That person is just not allowed to drive people around.
If you want it to be fast, you need to be careful because popcnt has a false dependency on the output register. You write "x = popcnt(y)", but the processor interprets it something like "x = x*0 + popcnt(y)", So popcnt instructions storing their result into the same register have three cycle latency when they should only have one cycle latency.
Best to use an inline assembler instruction that assigns x = popcnt(x). No false dependency possible.
Freefont made a mistake, in that case selection sort or insertion sort would still be O(n^2), but would have a smaller constant value.
The joke is on you - in this case Bubblesort is asked to sort a sequence of arrays where each array is either sorted or almost sorted, and Bubblesort handles that in O (n). Linear time. Faster than Quicksort. Faster than selection or insertion sort.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like encryption systems need to have two passwords; one that decrypts the volume and another that wipes the keys and images a fresh filesystem. When they compel you to enter your password, you enter the "destroy code."
What would be the use of that if you don't want to commit a crime and hide the evidence?
So you're telling me that the Judge has power to order you to do literally anything during a trial? such as stick a knife in yourself or someone else? and if you refuse you are now in contempt and can go to prison for ever?
If you talk nonsense like that in court, then the judge hasn't just the right, but a legal obligation to stick a knife in your eye.
So if you make the password itself something that would be incriminating, you could legitimately withhold it?
Possibly. Of course "I killed seven girls" as a password is not incriminating - it shows that you are a rather sick individual but not that you killed anyone. "Seven bodies are buried in my garden under the cherry tree" would be incriminating if it were true and the police checked.
But a much more plausible case is when it is known that either you or your best friend is the owner of the encrypted drive, but it isn't known which one. Then providing the password would be _very_ incriminating and you wouldn't be required to provide it. And of course you couldn't be held in contempt because there's only a 50% chance that you are withholding the password.
What if it isn't even actually encrypted? "I see a lot of files on here that aren't .mp3, .jpg or .gif files, they have weird extensions like .class. They're obviously encrypted, decrypt them and show us the illegal stuff they're encrypted as!"
That's why you have expert witnesses and lawyers. No expert witness would make such a claim, because they would never be an expert witness again, and no lawyer would let them get away with it.
No state has the right to compel assistance in one's own prosecution, constitution or no.
Sure they do. For example, if the police comes to your home with a search warrant, you have to assist them by opening the door. In that particular situation, the police doesn't mind if you don't assist and you will not be prosecuted; they feel that having to pay for a broken door that stopped them for five seconds is enough punishment.
You have to provide keys or code for a safe if they have a warrant. You have to unlock encrypted drives if they have a warrant. What you don't have to do is give evidence against yourself. Unlocking an encrypted drive that they already know was used by you is not giving evidence against yourself.
Oh yeah, well what if his passkey is "I attest under penalty of perjury that I rape lots of kids"?
That's a rather stupid password, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the password is a true statement, so it cannot be held against you.
Think of the ramifications, the court claims you saw something with no evidence of proof of that claim, you say you did not and they imprison you until you say what they want you to say.
You see, the analogy breaks down at the point where evidence was found on his Mac, and the two encrypted drives were connected to his Mac. If you show me a random encrypted disk drive, I have no idea what the password is. If you show me an encrypted disk drive that was connected to my Mac, either I know the password, or it's stored in the keychain of the Mac so you can access it with the keychain password.
And that's the situation this man is in. They ask for the password to an encrypted drive that he has been using.
He may be in jail a long time ... and considering these particular (and unlawful) laws, he is better off being in jail on the contempt charges.
When he gets out from the contempt charges, the same judge will ask for the password again.
A strobe gif in an email is illegal, really? How are you going to prosecute that?
Well, you have the police investigate, they find evidence that you sent this email, then they find evidence that you sent it with the intent of hurting someone, then you get sent, to court, then you get convicted, then you go to jail. That's how this gets prosecuted.
This post is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
You might want to express that the post is dedicated to (1) mum, (2) dad, (3) Ayn Rand, (4) God. Or you might want to express that you are the result of sex between Ayn Rand and God. The sentence as written could express both. So clearly you must use two changed sentences to express the two different statements without ambiguity.
If you wanted to express the first statement, you could do that in very slightly bad English but unambiguous with a tiny little change by writing "my parents, Ayn Rand, and God". If you wanted to express the second statement in a different way, a bigger change would be needed, like "Ayn Rand and God, my parents" or "Ayn Rand and God, who are my parents".
But since the change for the first meaning would have been much smaller, that change would have been made if you wanted the first meaning.
Drivers win. An additional comma "packing for shipment, or distribution", would have meant they lose.
Handy if you're a developer who has to develop for both platforms.
If you are an iPhone developer, you have multiple iPhones and iPads, running multiple iOS versions, and if you are an Android developer, I would think that you have multiple Android devices running multiple Android versions. This thing is of basically no use for the developer.
Good luck netting any real compensation after paying all the lawyers' costs. That's assuming you can even win.
To be brutal, he is now a single man without a wife needing expensive treatments, so he should be doing reasonably well financially. And his stated goal is not to get money, but to hit this company, which behaved in a way that he cannot forgive, as hard as he possibly can.
I don't think you understand the concept of "lock out - tag out".
It seems that she was working on the robot in location 130, and that robot was absolutely safely shut down - and it didn't occur to anyone that the robot in location 140 could reach far enough to kill someone in location 130.
They were most likely properly trained, and handled the danger that they were aware of correctly. Unfortunately, they didn't see the other danger.
The point is, getting around encryption is too costly to do it on a mass scale, so they can only really do it for the small portion of targets judged worth it.
As an example, when you use https some secret code is negotiated between you and the server. There are some random numbers that should be used in the process, and apparently lots of servers use the same random numbers and don't change them. As a result, about 10% of all https at some point used the same random numbers.
In this particular case, there is an unconfirmed rumour that the NSA with an investment > $100 million managed to "crack" this one random number so that any https using one of those servers becomes crackable. That's $100 million, and that investment can be wiped out in a second by using a different random number. That gives you an idea of the cost of breaking encryption.
My daughter worked Tech Support when she was in college. They were told that if they happened to find child porn they were supposed to report it, although they weren't tasked with actively searching for it. The reason being that if you are aware of a crime, you are supposed to report it; otherwise you risk being guilty of conspiracy.
Whoever told her that was absolutely correct. If you find child porn (as a technician or in any other way) you need to report to avoid becoming a criminal yourself.
On the other hand, you have no right as a technician to search someone's computer, whether they are an innocent citizen, or a pedophile. Assume you signed a contract that you won't search a computer, with a $10,000 penalty if you do. And you search it and find child porn. Now you are in a right mess, because the only legal thing you can do is report it to the police and pay the $10,000 penalty.
My guess: when Uber submits documentation for road safety, patents, copyrights, etc - that information could be submitted to a third-party arbiter to verify that the technology used is unique and not infringing upon Google's patents.
I think this is not about patents, but about trade secrets. Patents are openly published and give the patent holder a time-limited monopoly on the invention. Trade secrets are kept secret. Others are allowed to invent and then use the exact same thing, but they are not allowed to steal the secret and then use it.
Hopkins is probably wishing she took up the offer to accept "an apology and a 5,000 GBP donation to a migrants charity" right now.
Most of the country is glad she didn't.
Traveling back in time to "kill Hitler" has become so synonymous with time travel fantasies that it's unlikely future time travelers would actually do it for fear of divulging the existence of their powers and contaminating their preferred timeline. If people in current time knew they were at the mercy of time travelers, they could protect themselves by destroying records and implementing pervasive anonymity (ala technologies like Tor).
1933: Time traveller arrives in Germany, kills Hitler.
1960: German nuclear bomb destroys New York.
That's actually a logical possibility. The same things might have happened in Germany, but at a slower speed and with less madness at the top.
The FBI does not care about prevention. They care about locking up people. Hence this is exactly as they want it.
Not in this case. The caught a fish, a nasty fish, but a little fish, so they rather throw him back into the lake to have a chance to catch bigger fish.
In this case, a known pedophile isn't going to jail, but on the other hand, it's very unlikely that he does the same thing again.
I really don't care which one someone prefers, what I can't stand is not having a standard translation between the two. I wish IDE's, programming languages, and text editors would just pick an arbitrary value like 4 spaces = 1 tab and stick to it. Then, we could let people use whichever they choose.
Here's what Xcode does: You have several settings. One whether you prefer tabs or spaces in your source code. Two how many spaces does a tab equal. Three how much indentation. And four what pressing tab does.
Now the practical reality is: If you don't pick tab = 4 spaces and indent = 4 spaces then you're off my team. I'm not talking to you. The last point, what pressing tab does exactly (indenting or inserting a tab character) is up to you. The first point, whether tab or spaces are preferred, make basically no difference - except if two people with different settings edit a file, you will have gratiutious changes. Select all, copy, paste will change everything to your preferences, and then you are in diff hell. So the whole team _must_ agree on one setting.
by the way, there's NOTHING wrong with leading tabs... as long as you ALWAYS use tabs. Convenient thing is that if I like 2 space indentation and you like 4 space indentation, we can both have what we want, as long as no one is converting leading tabs to spaces.
No, that doesn't work. Indentation isn't used only for the nesting level. It's also used for the indentation of second and further lines of multi-line statements.
Ban/block *ALL* robocalls, period.
I do get robocalls from my bank about suspected fraud with my Visa card. So far it was always Ok, but I would like to get these calls. And there's no need for a human to call.
But the kind of interesting thing here is that discriminating on things based on language skills (deemed to be directly related to the job here by the government), are usually limitations of the law *allowing* employer's to be discriminatory. In this case, the government is *requiring* the employer (Uber) to discriminate and apply these standards.
In this case, Uber states quite clearly that they are not an employer. And the "speak English" test is to determine whether you are allowed to drive people around in England. Uber is clearly allowed to hire someone who only speaks Indian, and put them on a plane to India where they can drive. Or hire them as a car washer. That person is just not allowed to drive people around.
x86 has had POPCNT since SSE 4.2.
If you want it to be fast, you need to be careful because popcnt has a false dependency on the output register. You write "x = popcnt(y)", but the processor interprets it something like "x = x*0 + popcnt(y)", So popcnt instructions storing their result into the same register have three cycle latency when they should only have one cycle latency.
Best to use an inline assembler instruction that assigns x = popcnt(x). No false dependency possible.
Freefont made a mistake, in that case selection sort or insertion sort would still be O(n^2), but would have a smaller constant value.
The joke is on you - in this case Bubblesort is asked to sort a sequence of arrays where each array is either sorted or almost sorted, and Bubblesort handles that in O (n). Linear time. Faster than Quicksort. Faster than selection or insertion sort.