How much difficulty would it take to build a custom linux live distro specifically to access the VPN from a secure environment? The employee can purchase the USBkey with the Linux Distro built into it. They plug the USBkey into their home computer and it loads a live distro of Linux. They can only save files onto the USBkey itself in encrypted form, no data ever touches the harddrive of the personal computer. No viruses or anything else can run because the LinuxDistro is extremely limited and extremely secure.
And if there is a data security breach you take it from their paycheck. So what do you think? Would it work?
If they access it via https at least then it's encrypted. If they access via some kind of VPN it can also be secure.
It just has to be done in a way where their computer cannot save anything. A liveCD or liveUSB type setup might work but I don't know for sure. What do you think?
Software results in data loss and is prone to errors, the solution is to buy full disk encryption hardware. Install the harddrives and be done with it. Or if you don't want to install the harddrive then give them a usb hardware encryption thumb drive to take home with them.
There is no reason to use software encryption unless you just want to be cheap.
spy on individuals accused of rape... if the rapist decides to cross state lines
And that right there is part of the reason why this sort of idea makes me uneasy.
You meant alleged rapist, yet in one paragraph you've managed (accidentally, no doubt) to switch from talking about an alleged criminal to an actual one.
But if they are going to spy on everyone anyway, lets start with the rapists right? They are going to spy either way because they have the money and power to do it. They can spy indiscriminately or they can spy on the people accused of violent crime. Either way you are just as likely to be spied on if you piss off a rich person.
I'm well aware that an accused rapist is not a rapist. But since it's legal to spy on anyone if you have the money, anybody rich can hire a private detective and legally spy on anybody. Anybody powerful can take it one step further and have people set up via corrupt cops. There is no solution to corruption because when the economy goes bad the society becomes more corrupt.
They could get the money for these bounties from rape victims and this a portion of this money can be given to bounty hunters who have the legal authority to conduct these sorts of investigations.
I suspect that approach would lead quite quickly to a situation where only rich victims could afford to buy co-operation in hunting down their attackers. And quite possibly, where people would not respond to requests for assistance unless there's "something in it for them" and "at the right price". p How about we give the police enough funding to do their jobs properly, refuse to accept corruption and incompetence and take a very close look at measures that might mitigate the chances of people growing up to be abusive psychos? Just a thought.....
Thats already how it is. The rich get justice and the poor get fucked with. Since I'm not rich I'd prefer a world where the rich pay me to bring justice to their attackers. Since victims come from all classes there will always be plenty of rich victims to pass the bounties around.
Have a better idea? There are abusive psycho's in every environment. The rich are the only ones with the money to deal with abusive psychos, so it's becoming an industry.
If this information is not attached to an legal identity then it's okay to have a machine or computer datamine the information. It's only when this information is pieced together, analyzed and exploited that it becomes more than just data but an information weapon.
It's already too late, information already is used as a weapon.
Weapons are for offensive action, not defensive. You don't defend against a knife with a gun, you attack a person with a knife by shooting them. Get him before he gets you. And don't give me "it's a deterrent" either; As soon as weapons are legalised, they will be abused. The rapist will mace the victim before they know what's happening because it's readily available. Or are you proposing that only women should receive it? Men are never raped, are they...
Hell, let's give everyone automatic weapons and let God sort 'em out, yeah? That's where this ends.
If you get him before he gets you then you have successfully saved yourself from his aggression. I see nothing wrong with shooting a person who is coming at me with a knife. Of course I'd much rather spray him and neutralize him without killing him, but I'd still kill if it were between letting him stab me or shooting him.
I'm saying men and women should be able to purchase mace. I'm saying mace is more useful to protect a woman from men because men are usually bigger than women. Women need a way to even the playing field, they need a force equalizer/amplifier.
And no we shouldn't give EVERYONE automatic weapons. We should give everyone non-lethal weapons. You cannot take away the right to self defense from anyone because it's in the Constitution. Also it's natural law that even the most primal of animals follow.
Do you expect wild animals to survive if you take away their weapons and put them in a jungle filled with predators? Thats not very fair is it? We don't even treat our pets that way. Sure some people declaw their cats and throw them outside to fight cats with claws but this is considered inhumane to do to an outdoor cat right?
What? Legalise chemical weapons for public use? How long before it's used in a bar brawl, or when someone's dog barks at a child in the park, or hell the wrist watch goes off when you're checking the time!
All of your situations listed are better than being raped. If non-lethal chemical weapons can prevent rape, they should be used. We should hand them out to our daughters just like we hand out condoms to our sons.
What ever happened to not walking down alleyways at night, making sure someone knows where you are when you travel (itinerary-style maybe, for long trips)?
How about carrying your own personal security accessory with your at all times? A dog has teeth, a cat has claws, a woman should have mace.
The best thing the law could to is to extend Good Samaritan laws to allow bystanders to interfere in violent situations where one party is either defenceless, or at a severe disadvantage.
I wouldn't interfere, I would run. Maybe if I had a gun, some mace, even a taser, then I would interfere. Nobody is going to interfere when weapons are illegal and only the criminals have weapons.
Right now, I'm too afraid of prosecution if I try and defend someone other than myself, and that's terrible.
If I know the person and their reputation I would defend them without any fear of prosecution. I'd rather use non-lethal force to prevent a rape so legalize non-lethal weapons and I'll do something about it if someone is being raped. Otherwise the cops can fight crime all by themselves, and they shouldn't expect me to interfere because I'm not going to talk to the police or be a vigilante. I'll just forget to remember the names and faces, dates and times, and completely stay out of all of it unless it specifically involves me or a loved one.
Cops can't have it both ways, either they let us help them fight crime or they are on their own.
As a process improvement professional, this sounds like a damned cool thing to have access to!
Libertarian isn't the same as "anarchist". Libertarian means you want to maximize liberty for people who don't harm anyone. The legalize drugs, prostitute, line of thinking is not the same as thinking rape or violence crime should be legal.
The best we can do as libertarians is design technology which promotes freedom for the user.
... which has nothing to do with rapists. On the other hand, you have a point - for decades there was a problem of well-connected, powerful Japanese men molesting women on subway trains that, despite the efforts of the police, was covered up by the (ashamed) women.
This is why the Yakuza exists. These men can pay the gangsters and keep their lives, a portion of the money can be transfered to the victims. Yes this is extortion but that is street justice.
That's the trade-off of living in a modern civilization: you agree to give up your right to randomly hunt down whoever you think deserves it, in return for being assured that nobody else can randomly hunt you down to satisfy a grudge, either.
Sometimes that's just not a fair trade off. There are people who out there who are getting away with murder. The law is powerless to do anything. Killing a few of them would do a lot more good than bad.
That depends on who these people murdered and why.
I don't believe all murders are equally wrong because not all lives are of equal value.
I wasn't thinking so much about solving it as I was about surviving it. If the police won't (or can't) protect you then you have to protect yourself. Your goal shouldn't be to solve crime, it should be to survive a crime being committed against you.
Your goal has to be a combination of both. I believe that lawful citizens have a right of self defense using non-lethal or lethal force if the context requires it. In the situation of rape sometimes there is no simple defense but I suppose if we legalized mace, and other chemical sprays in a concealable weapon this would be helpful. Such as a wristwatch which can alert the cops at the push of a button, or spray out a mist to blind the attacker.
Honestly this isn't difficult to solve. The police outlaw mace and chemical sprays to keep us in fear so they can keep their jobs. It has nothing to do with protecting the public. Gun control is also about keeping police employed and has nothing to do with protecting the public.
Here is a suggestion for victims of rape. Form a surveillance corporation which allows other victims of rape to pay you to technologically track and spy on individuals accused of rape by more than two individuals. This corporation will collect the information via open source intelligence collection and provide a continuous feed to the cops and to the feds if the rapist decides to cross state lines.
A person, continuing to violate laws and harm people doesn't have rights. They don't have a right to trial, to remain silent or anything else.
Rights are only established once they've been apprehended and in safe custody. However, someone shooting people from a tower has no rights, because they don't care about other people's rights.
This is the problem with our society today, we are too emasculated to actually state what is obvious, for fear of offending those that need to be offended.
You know those High Speed Car Chases? Those would end as soon as police were allowed to shoot to stop/kill the assholes putting everyone else's lives in danger, just the same as they are allowed to shoot someone wielding a gun and shooting it randomly into the air.
I'm sorry, but not catching a bad guy because we might, just might, hurt their "wittle feewings" (awww) or our sense of "fairness" or whatever is just as evil as the bad guys raping girls and killing people.
If they surrender immediately upon contact with law enforcement, great, if they try to get away so that they can continue their crime spree, then fuckem, all bets are off.
The problem is anyone can accuse you of being a witch.
An eye for an eye is to send the rapists to a special prison designed to house all rapists and to pay off the guards so they look the other way while they gang rape the individual.
Putting them out of our collective misery would be an even bigger service to mankind but some people frown on such notions.....
I don't, but I can't defend my own rights by sacrificing somebody else's. He's entitled to the same legal and ethical protections I am, whatever his past or present behaviors. There's a simple and time-honored tradition this society has of dealing with malefactors -- imprisonment. Besides, I know what happens to rapists in jail. I think throwing the predator in with the other predators would sate my thirst for vengance.
So if the rapist is convicted and we release him should we not track him the rest of his life? Realistically this guy already has done it, so why should this individual have a right to privacy?
I understand suspects are innocent until proven guilty but the same cannot be said for the convicted sex offenders.
The cops have the ability to use unlimited surveillance, informants, and they have good forensics to catch petty drug dealers, but their surveillance doesn't work on murderers and rapists?
So if the private sector offers to use surveillance on a suspected rapist via an undercover investigation, and the suspect commits a rape ON CAMERA, is this not good enough evidence?
Hopefully the suspect is dumb enough to leave his cellphone on while he/she commits the rape.
As long as there's a single pot smoker in jail, "limited resources" has no pull whatsoever.
The police spend a greater portion of their money solving drug crimes and paying off drug informants than they do trying to catch rapists. If they want to catch rapists where are the informants? Somehow they have an endless supply of informants who will rat you out for smoking a joint but nobody when it's time to catch a real criminal?
Slashdot Mirror
How much difficulty would it take to build a custom linux live distro specifically to access the VPN from a secure environment? The employee can purchase the USBkey with the Linux Distro built into it. They plug the USBkey into their home computer and it loads a live distro of Linux. They can only save files onto the USBkey itself in encrypted form, no data ever touches the harddrive of the personal computer. No viruses or anything else can run because the LinuxDistro is extremely limited and extremely secure.
And if there is a data security breach you take it from their paycheck. So what do you think? Would it work?
If they access it via https at least then it's encrypted. If they access via some kind of VPN it can also be secure.
It just has to be done in a way where their computer cannot save anything. A liveCD or liveUSB type setup might work but I don't know for sure. What do you think?
Simply plug the key into your computer at home and access the encrypted data on the DVDrom or even on the USB key itself.
Problem solved.
Software results in data loss and is prone to errors, the solution is to buy full disk encryption hardware. Install the harddrives and be done with it. Or if you don't want to install the harddrive then give them a usb hardware encryption thumb drive to take home with them.
There is no reason to use software encryption unless you just want to be cheap.
I wouldn't be surprised if its a death star type laser.
No need to melt or physically destroy it.
spy on individuals accused of rape... if the rapist decides to cross state lines
And that right there is part of the reason why this sort of idea makes me uneasy.
You meant alleged rapist, yet in one paragraph you've managed (accidentally, no doubt) to switch from talking about an alleged criminal to an actual one.
But if they are going to spy on everyone anyway, lets start with the rapists right? They are going to spy either way because they have the money and power to do it. They can spy indiscriminately or they can spy on the people accused of violent crime. Either way you are just as likely to be spied on if you piss off a rich person.
I'm well aware that an accused rapist is not a rapist. But since it's legal to spy on anyone if you have the money, anybody rich can hire a private detective and legally spy on anybody. Anybody powerful can take it one step further and have people set up via corrupt cops. There is no solution to corruption because when the economy goes bad the society becomes more corrupt.
Expect to see more of this.
I suspect that approach would lead quite quickly to a situation where only rich victims could afford to buy co-operation in hunting down their attackers. And quite possibly, where people would not respond to requests for assistance unless there's "something in it for them" and "at the right price".
p
How about we give the police enough funding to do their jobs properly, refuse to accept corruption and incompetence and take a very close look at measures that might mitigate the chances of people growing up to be abusive psychos? Just a thought.....
Thats already how it is. The rich get justice and the poor get fucked with. Since I'm not rich I'd prefer a world where the rich pay me to bring justice to their attackers. Since victims come from all classes there will always be plenty of rich victims to pass the bounties around.
Have a better idea? There are abusive psycho's in every environment. The rich are the only ones with the money to deal with abusive psychos, so it's becoming an industry.
If this information is not attached to an legal identity then it's okay to have a machine or computer datamine the information. It's only when this information is pieced together, analyzed and exploited that it becomes more than just data but an information weapon.
It's already too late, information already is used as a weapon.
You just take their eyes first and then they wont be able to see your strikes.
Weapons are for offensive action, not defensive. You don't defend against a knife with a gun, you attack a person with a knife by shooting them. Get him before he gets you. And don't give me "it's a deterrent" either; As soon as weapons are legalised, they will be abused. The rapist will mace the victim before they know what's happening because it's readily available. Or are you proposing that only women should receive it? Men are never raped, are they...
Hell, let's give everyone automatic weapons and let God sort 'em out, yeah? That's where this ends.
If you get him before he gets you then you have successfully saved yourself from his aggression. I see nothing wrong with shooting a person who is coming at me with a knife. Of course I'd much rather spray him and neutralize him without killing him, but I'd still kill if it were between letting him stab me or shooting him.
I'm saying men and women should be able to purchase mace. I'm saying mace is more useful to protect a woman from men because men are usually bigger than women. Women need a way to even the playing field, they need a force equalizer/amplifier.
And no we shouldn't give EVERYONE automatic weapons. We should give everyone non-lethal weapons. You cannot take away the right to self defense from anyone because it's in the Constitution. Also it's natural law that even the most primal of animals follow.
Do you expect wild animals to survive if you take away their weapons and put them in a jungle filled with predators? Thats not very fair is it? We don't even treat our pets that way. Sure some people declaw their cats and throw them outside to fight cats with claws but this is considered inhumane to do to an outdoor cat right?
What? Legalise chemical weapons for public use? How long before it's used in a bar brawl, or when someone's dog barks at a child in the park, or hell the wrist watch goes off when you're checking the time!
All of your situations listed are better than being raped. If non-lethal chemical weapons can prevent rape, they should be used. We should hand them out to our daughters just like we hand out condoms to our sons.
What ever happened to not walking down alleyways at night, making sure someone knows where you are when you travel (itinerary-style maybe, for long trips)?
How about carrying your own personal security accessory with your at all times? A dog has teeth, a cat has claws, a woman should have mace.
The best thing the law could to is to extend Good Samaritan laws to allow bystanders to interfere in violent situations where one party is either defenceless, or at a severe disadvantage.
I wouldn't interfere, I would run. Maybe if I had a gun, some mace, even a taser, then I would interfere. Nobody is going to interfere when weapons are illegal and only the criminals have weapons.
Right now, I'm too afraid of prosecution if I try and defend someone other than myself, and that's terrible.
If I know the person and their reputation I would defend them without any fear of prosecution. I'd rather use non-lethal force to prevent a rape so legalize non-lethal weapons and I'll do something about it if someone is being raped. Otherwise the cops can fight crime all by themselves, and they shouldn't expect me to interfere because I'm not going to talk to the police or be a vigilante. I'll just forget to remember the names and faces, dates and times, and completely stay out of all of it unless it specifically involves me or a loved one.
Cops can't have it both ways, either they let us help them fight crime or they are on their own.
Don't any of you people play Quake anymore?
As a libertarian, this scares the hell out of me.
As a process improvement professional, this sounds like a damned cool thing to have access to!
Libertarian isn't the same as "anarchist". Libertarian means you want to maximize liberty for people who don't harm anyone. The legalize drugs, prostitute, line of thinking is not the same as thinking rape or violence crime should be legal.
The best we can do as libertarians is design technology which promotes freedom for the user.
This way next time there is a driveby there is no chance of the criminals getting away.
Hey they should have thought about killing their enemy without endangering everyone else.
... which has nothing to do with rapists. On the other hand, you have a point - for decades there was a problem of well-connected, powerful Japanese men molesting women on subway trains that, despite the efforts of the police, was covered up by the (ashamed) women.
This is why the Yakuza exists. These men can pay the gangsters and keep their lives, a portion of the money can be transfered to the victims. Yes this is extortion but that is street justice.
That's the trade-off of living in a modern civilization: you agree to give up your right to randomly hunt down whoever you think deserves it, in return for being assured that nobody else can randomly hunt you down to satisfy a grudge, either.
Sometimes that's just not a fair trade off. There are people who out there who are getting away with murder. The law is powerless to do anything. Killing a few of them would do a lot more good than bad.
That depends on who these people murdered and why.
I don't believe all murders are equally wrong because not all lives are of equal value.
I wasn't thinking so much about solving it as I was about surviving it. If the police won't (or can't) protect you then you have to protect yourself. Your goal shouldn't be to solve crime, it should be to survive a crime being committed against you.
Your goal has to be a combination of both. I believe that lawful citizens have a right of self defense using non-lethal or lethal force if the context requires it. In the situation of rape sometimes there is no simple defense but I suppose if we legalized mace, and other chemical sprays in a concealable weapon this would be helpful. Such as a wristwatch which can alert the cops at the push of a button, or spray out a mist to blind the attacker.
Honestly this isn't difficult to solve. The police outlaw mace and chemical sprays to keep us in fear so they can keep their jobs. It has nothing to do with protecting the public. Gun control is also about keeping police employed and has nothing to do with protecting the public.
Here is a suggestion for victims of rape. Form a surveillance corporation which allows other victims of rape to pay you to technologically track and spy on individuals accused of rape by more than two individuals. This corporation will collect the information via open source intelligence collection and provide a continuous feed to the cops and to the feds if the rapist decides to cross state lines.
"John Q. Rapist moved into the neighborhood at 123 Main St. Let's blacklist him so he can't get a job and force him to move away."
A person, continuing to violate laws and harm people doesn't have rights. They don't have a right to trial, to remain silent or anything else.
Rights are only established once they've been apprehended and in safe custody. However, someone shooting people from a tower has no rights, because they don't care about other people's rights.
This is the problem with our society today, we are too emasculated to actually state what is obvious, for fear of offending those that need to be offended.
You know those High Speed Car Chases? Those would end as soon as police were allowed to shoot to stop/kill the assholes putting everyone else's lives in danger, just the same as they are allowed to shoot someone wielding a gun and shooting it randomly into the air.
I'm sorry, but not catching a bad guy because we might, just might, hurt their "wittle feewings" (awww) or our sense of "fairness" or whatever is just as evil as the bad guys raping girls and killing people.
If they surrender immediately upon contact with law enforcement, great, if they try to get away so that they can continue their crime spree, then fuckem, all bets are off.
The problem is anyone can accuse you of being a witch.
An eye for an eye is to send the rapists to a special prison designed to house all rapists and to pay off the guards so they look the other way while they gang rape the individual.
Putting them out of our collective misery would be an even bigger service to mankind but some people frown on such notions.....
I don't, but I can't defend my own rights by sacrificing somebody else's. He's entitled to the same legal and ethical protections I am, whatever his past or present behaviors. There's a simple and time-honored tradition this society has of dealing with malefactors -- imprisonment. Besides, I know what happens to rapists in jail. I think throwing the predator in with the other predators would sate my thirst for vengance.
So if the rapist is convicted and we release him should we not track him the rest of his life? Realistically this guy already has done it, so why should this individual have a right to privacy?
I understand suspects are innocent until proven guilty but the same cannot be said for the convicted sex offenders.
The cops have the ability to use unlimited surveillance, informants, and they have good forensics to catch petty drug dealers, but their surveillance doesn't work on murderers and rapists?
So if the private sector offers to use surveillance on a suspected rapist via an undercover investigation, and the suspect commits a rape ON CAMERA, is this not good enough evidence?
Hopefully the suspect is dumb enough to leave his cellphone on while he/she commits the rape.
As long as there's a single pot smoker in jail, "limited resources" has no pull whatsoever.
The police spend a greater portion of their money solving drug crimes and paying off drug informants than they do trying to catch rapists. If they want to catch rapists where are the informants? Somehow they have an endless supply of informants who will rat you out for smoking a joint but nobody when it's time to catch a real criminal?
Typical.