1) Support and Return policy: Once I have opened a game for the PC, that is it. I can't return the damn thing. So I had better be sure that it is worth my money before I put cash down. Also, game publishers refuse to actually support their games. I have Test Drive: Unlimited sitting on my shelf. It has only been played a very very few times, because thats how often it actuall worked! There is no support, and patches are few and far between and seem far more intrested in updating DRM than fixing game issues.
2) DRM. This is the BIG reason. Every game I have bought has been FAR more of a headache to install and play than games I have downloaded. In fact, I tend to keep using the pirated versions even AFTER I have bought the game. I just install with the valid CD key. Again, far less headaches than using the included DRM infested media (Bioshock required me to reformat the computer to get rid of it's DRM, even after I uninstalled the game).
3) Quality: Lets face it. Most of the games out there are crap. I ussually only play about an hour or two of a game before it gets deleted off my machine. As I am unable to take the game back to the store for a refund, I had better make sure the game is actually worth my hard earned cash.
4) Cost: Games are quite expensive for what you are getting. No other application would give you such poor support, poor quality, and buggy software and still charge a premium price. The least one should expect from such a premium is technical support.
That would be about the worst thing you could do to them =P. However, it would also probibly be the worst thing you could do for yourself as well. In all seriousness, collect all the data that you have with the assistance of a lawyer, go down to the station and file a complaint. The police will have to act on it, essicially if it comes from a lawyer as the lawyer is an officer of the court.
I use PFSense at home. I have to admit the reason I use it is I am just too damn lazy to whip up a PF.Conf and PFSense makes it easy. For home use it is perfect. My upstream is ussually pinned (Not because of file sharing actually) but I don't notice any slowdowns in games or web as these are prioitized higher than my P2P traffic (which is a catch all, all undefined traffic goes in this que).
Cool. Found out from some of my clients (I do alot of IT support for law firms) that here in Canada that all laywers are both. It is just a older term that we never stopped useing.
kid needs a "law talking dude". I really can't see any way that those charges could stick. Certainly if you bring up the opinion of a JUDGE it would have to be thrown out. I am not a lawyer, but isn't that a "precident"? Now there may be some issue because there was a sign involved, and that seems to be the target of the bill. However, free speach IS protected, dispite what missinformed Yanks may think, and your speach didn't fall over into the area of UNprotected speach we call "hate speech". That is, directly advocating violent action or discrimination of a person or people based on race, gender, religion or sexuality.
I belive in this case it would have to be proven that "cult" IS a derogitory term and I think it would be extremely hard to do so. I watch "cult" movies, listen to "cult" music, and I don't think of the word as an insult, but rather a run of the mill discription. On the otherhand, take the word "asshole" or "cunt".. in what case would these NOT be termed derogitory? That is the cutting edge of difference. Scientology will try and claim that THEY find the term offensive, and hense why the law should be enforced, but ANY word in that context could be offensive, should I but declare it so. I can find the letter "E" offensive and insulting all I like, but that isn't going to mean that if someone uses it on a sign that I have the right to have them arrested or the sign taken down.
I wouldn't worry if I were this kid. DEFINATLY get a Barister/Solicitor (You need someone who is both.. not sure which is which, but one just a laywer and the other represents you in court.. think Kingdom, you need a "Mr. Kingdom" =)). You could probibly find someone to take the case Pro Bono, or even legal aid might help. I am sure that after this you will have no shortage of willing helpers =).
To say this is a bad idea would be an understatment. For one thing I would be surprised indeed if there were not botnets run and controlled by governments. I would be even more surprised if the US was not one of those governements, however; there is a difference between running a covert bot-net and creating one in the open covered by US laws. First a couple of things in this post really got alarm bells ringing for me.
"civilian computers may be attacked, but only if the enemy compels us."
What is being said here is that we won't attack your computer unless we have to, but I have to take the millitary's word for it. By nessesity the means which the enemy uses to "compel" would be secret, as would the responce. I may be slow but I am not stupid, I certainly don't trust the military with that kind of power.
"respect the law of armed conflict"
Are we to treat the entire internet now as an armed conflict? This is a very very slippry slope and there needs to be careful consideration before we apply it to something so broad and international and the network of networks we call "the internet". If it is a war, does that mean we can expect US soldiers storming data centres in Sweden in the name of the RIAA?
But those are broad moral implications, what about practical ones. Would it be legal to remove a DnD trojan or root kit? Would the antivirus vendors have to be involved? How about the security groups that hunt down disable the command and control funtions of botnets. From what I can tell removing such a bot or disabling it's command and control centres as discribed in this post, could be construded as treason.
There is another reason that it is better these things are done in secret. They are illegal and should remain so. The government should NEVER participate in them. So if they are done, and those who initiate them are wrong, their heads, their careers, their freedom goes, rightfully, on the block.
I work for a small IT company doing work mostly for law offices in our city. I fully, and completely agree that security is of prime importance and that we spend far to little time on it. The problem is guys, how do I get my CLIENTS to buy it? Most of them are fairly small and the attitude of "It can't happen to me" is all pervasive.
Sounds like you need something a little more serious then just plugging in a USB HD here. I have a couple of suggestions for you. The first is to set up a RAID^2 system. This is sometimes referred to as a RAID of RAIDs. Put simply, you make up three or more different RAID5 systems and then put those together in a RAID5 themselves. You loose a bit of data doing it, but you end up with a very robust system where it is almost impossible to loose data.
The other option is to set yourself up with ATA over Ethernet. This is a kind of SAN system and would require a dedicated network of the fastest network cards you can find. Myranet would be perfect for instance. One of the nice things about ATAoE is that you can grow your storage as you add new disks into the system.
Hope that helps! You can find plenty of data on both these systems by searching the net.. or just ask. I will do my best to help.
admin "let me just reset it for you, the default password is a square with a star inside started at grid co-ordinates 0,3 going to 0,10 then down to 10,10... Don't forget to lift your pen at each courner"
You ask the person and they refuse to answer. How can you be damn sure you're correct?
Well first off she DID reply. She said it was a piece of art and then walked around the courner. The second part was that she was asked by an INFORMATION clerk and NOT by a police officer. That clerk then went and called the authorities who came with guns drawn AFTER she had left the terminal and was looking for a cab.
So for one, first you ASK. That would be my suggestion. The authorities didn't ask, they just barged in and went at it.
What you advocate is the tyranny of anarchy, where the rights of the individual trump the rights of society. I'm sorry, but we THE PEOPLE means more than YOU the INDIVIDUAL.
Society doesn't have rights. At least none that are enshrined in the constitution. The only rights that are spelled out as such ARE individual rights. There are no other kinds. All sorts of atrocities have been committed in the name of the "Rights of the Society". The USSR used to go on about how in the Western world we had the Freedom To. The Freedom to say what we want, do what we want, act how we want, but in the USSR they had Freedom FROM. That is what you are advocating. Freedom From terrorism. The problem is the cost it comes at.
No where have I said there shouldn't be laws that govern the actions of individuals against individuals. Those laws exist to, as you say, protect society and have been as long as laws have existed. The constitution is there to insure that those laws that protect society don't interfere with the inalienable rights granted to you under the constitution. Anarchy means NO rules. In fact what I am talking about is the exact opposite of anarchy! Perhaps we need to look up a definition here (from dictionary.com):
anarchy
-noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
Where have I said that we shouldn't have government or law? In fact I am saying that the laws have NOT been followed and hence my ire. I think what you are saying that I am proposing a Tyranny of the Individual, and I am! So were the founding fathers. They had lived in a place where the good of the state trumped the good of the individual and decided that they wanted nothing to do with it. Went so far as to start a revolution!
You have stated that you are a patriot, but I have to ask, what exactly does that mean to you? My country right or wrong? Or does it mean that you will lay down your life to protect the liberty and the rights enshrined in the constitution? The individual rights that your founders fought King George to enshrine into one of the most important documents written in modern times.
There are no rights but individual rights and "The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance."
I am opposed to any detention based on anything BUT fact. That means that before you arrest the guy, you had better made DAMN certain that it is the correct one!
She wasn't "detained". She was thrown down at gun point. Her life was in immediate peril. She was THEN detained. At that point she was arrested and her person was searched. There was no warrent and a cursory examination would have shown there was no threat and as there was no provable intent (ie she didn't come out shouting "it's a bomb!") there was no crime. There is a HUGE difference between being questioned, and being threatened with death.
She was NOT in a "controlled area" as you say. That would refer to the security zone of the airport past (and a little before) the screening stations. She was in the public terminal, a zone that is most defiantly NOT a "controlled area". People can come and go as they please.
I have been thinking about this tonight. It comes down to this, "are you wiling to die to protect your freedom?". I don't mean join the army. I mean are you willing to put your life on the line for your and your children's liberty? I am, I know that the founding fathers of your country certainly were. So are you? That means running the risk of being blown up by a crazy person because you refuse to give up the rights that many many others have given their lives to give you. One more quote that seems apropos after that comment;
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". So are you a patriot, or a tyrant?
The justice system is based on a very simple principal;
"it is better that a thousand guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffers for a crime he did not commit."
This has been reduced to "innocent until proven guilty". But lets look at what you are saying further, because this was exactly the attitude that Jefferson was addressing with that aforementioned famous quote.
So they miss a bomb and it explodes killing a thousand people. Heavy stuff, and this is the argument that the Bush administration has used to take your rights away. However, if you should drive your car through a crowded mall you could kill tonnes of people! Does that mean that no one should have a drivers license? The DC sniper showed exactly how much terror a single person with a rifle could inflict on an entire city, yet there is no move to ban all assault and or sniper rifles. In fact every time someone tries there are howls of protest! How about flying? Terrorists used two planes to kill 3000 people, but you can still get a pilots license, same as before.
There are plenty of things that MIGHT happen. But a possible bad event in the future doesn't justify taking your rights away today. Increased security is good, and necessary in today's world. However, this kind of totalitarian, heavy handed approach doesn't do anything to insure your security. They WILL miss a bomb because sooner or later someone is bound to be smarter than they are. At that moment will you give up even MORE rights? The rest of the world has come to accept that terrorism DOES happen, however, they also know that you are FAR more likely to get struck by lightning than be killed in a terrorist incident. Furthermore they know that to increase security to the point where you are destroying rights means that the terrorists have won! This is the exact result that they wanted. The only way to beat them, is to live life as normal. Once you start taking away peoples liberty, then they have achieved their goals.
In the end we ALL are targets of terrorism. There is nothing you can do about it. The chances of another attack on American soil over time reach 100%. However, the chances of a terrorist attack in any one location is so very very slim that the only way you could "protect" yourself is to take away rights and force draconian security measures on your own, innocent, people. Even THIS won't protect you because of the laws of probability. The chances of another attack, over time, on US soil STILL reach 100%, no mater what you do. Because no mater how good your security, if someone really wants to beat it, they can.
So in the end it is a question that you have to ask yourself. If you are willing to give up rights NOW, to stop an event that is certain to happen sooner or later, what rights will you give up once that event HAS happened? ID cards? Restrictions on personal movement? Cameras on you 24 hours a day? How about someone tapping your phones and reading all your mail, just in case you might be planning something? How about it? When will you draw the line?
You don't have the freedom to wear devices that look like they could be bombs in an airport. Sorry, you just don't.
In fact you do. Your first amendment rights CAN'T be curtailed. There are certain situations that fall under "criminal intent" such as the much bally-hooed yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or pretending to have a gun in the security line up to board your plane. You still, however, have the right to wear something that says anything at all, anywhere you want. No questions asked. That is what the whole "Freedom of speech" thing is about. Of course authorities can always come up and ASK you what it is if there there a security question. However, their security doesn't trump YOUR rights. That is what the whole Boston Tea Party was about. THAT is the freedom that your founding fathers gave their lives to insure that you would have.
Just because you would happily give up some rights for security doesn't mean that it is right. Even if the majority agree with this (and majorities have done some pretty heinous things in the past, McCarthyism anyone?) it still isn't right. That is why the founding fathers made it so difficult to amend or change the constitution. They saw that there may be a time when the "majority" would agree to restrict their own rights, and they made it very very VERY difficult for that to happen. Of course they didn't see that some day the Constitution would be completely bypassed and the people wouldn't use their constitutionally protected rights to throw the tyrants out using force!
There is no situation where the taking away of rights is allowed. Wearing something that kinda, somewhat, a little bit looks like it could, maybe be a bomb, certainly isn't one of those situations. The question is one of degree. You can't make something a little bit illegal. Either it is, or it isn't. So when does it stop? If she can be thrown down at gun point and have her life literally threated for wearing a breadboard, does me wearing a picture of a bomb on my shirt count? From a distance it COULD look real! How about reading a book such as "Catcher in the Rye"? Don't laugh, people have already been thrown off planes for what they were reading. Talk about a slippery slope!
If she had gone in yelling "I have a bomb!" they would have a point. They were well within their authority to go and talk to her to confirm it wasn't a bomb, but not to throw her down at gun point for EXACTLY the reason as the fallout that is happening right now! It ONLY works if you are RIGHT. So far, every time this has happened, they have been WRONG. This means that in order to catch 0 terrorists, every one of us has to give up our rights. I have used this quote earlier in this thread, but it bears repeating:
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve niether"
If the direct words of one of the founding fathers doesn't move you, then I think you had better rethink your idea of what being an "American" is. Trust me, the REST of the world knows what "America" stands for, too bad the "United States" has seems to have forgotten.
You are correct, of course. There always COULD be a bomb. But if a cursory glance from someone with even a little training tells them that it is unlikely to be a bomb, then it makes more sense to go and ask them what it is before pulling out the guns.
Since always, if your provocation simulates a public emergency. See 'crowded theater, yelling FIRE in.' I'd say a reasonable person would conclude a fake bomb in an airport qualifies. In fact, there are laws on the books for specifically that - and postings in every airport to the same effect.
None of those things did she do. She went up to a counter and asked a question. This is FAR different from saying "I have a gun", or yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. If a "reasonable person would conclude a fake bomb in an airport" then they would know it was fake and therefore not a problem. She didn't try to board a flight or anything else of the sort, nor did she gesture or have ANYTHING other than the contents of her shirt. So if I have a picture of a bomb on my shirt and someone from a distance concludes that I am wearing a bomb does that give the police the right to throw me to the ground and arrest me??? Since when does "innocent until proven guilty" come with a stipulation????
No, she just had a breadboard, wires, and silly putty in an airport. Do you really believe that wasn't intent to simulate a bomb? Do you have a plausible alternate explanation? Come on. I can't think of a single acceptable reason you'd have those specific things in an airport.
I can't think of a single reason why NOT to have those things at an airport, or anywhere else for that matter. At our local airport the duty-free shop SELLS silly putty. Occam's razor means it is far more plausible to believe that she had a piece of art T-Shirt and some putty in her hand rather than she has some sort of bomb strapped to her chest that will wirelessly explode some putty in her hand. She doesn't need a reason to bring or not bring anything into an airport to pick someone up. Nor do you, or anyone else for that matter. This INCLUDES a gun if you are licensed to carry one.
Forgot Richard Reed? Based on your argument I'm sure you'd claim that having wires coming out of your shoe is freedom of expression. Additionally, based on the relative risk of a false alarm to a missed detection (ie, a night in jail for a moron vs. hundreds dead), I'm perfectly fine with the cops arresting absolutely anyone who does anything this dumb.
Richard Reed wasn't caught until he tried to LIGHT his shoe on a crowded plane. I believe he went into a bathroom, tired to light a FUSE (not wires.. there were no electronics involved) and someone smelled smoke. At that point he was detained. Airport security had the chance to stop him (this is where that training comes in) but did not. So the score is still nil.
How many suicide bombs have there been in US history.. umm.. none. How many airport bombings? So, explain to me how you come up with a reasonable risk here??? There was no risk, there has been no risk, and so far, the risks that ARE out there have been completely missed by the security professionals who are supposed to detect it. You feel that way because it isn't YOU who is being arrested. But how long until YOU are? This person wasn't looking for attention, she was there to pick someone up. If she was trying to make a statment, fine, that is her RIGHT. You might not like it, but she has a right to say it without being threatened with death!
"those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither."
You are one of those that Jefferson was refering too.
Freedom of speech: These rights include symbolic language and actions (like her shirt) Freedom of Assembly: She was meeting with her friend in a public space and was detained Freedom from unlawful search and seizure: she was arrested and had her person and belongings searched Freedom from malicious prosecution: Even after it was determined that the authorities made a mistake, instead of saying "sorry" and letting her go they charged her and made her post bail. She will get off on the charges, but not until she has spent thousands on legal fees that she will be unable to recoup.
I am sure you can come up with more if you think about it.
What, exactly, did you think the American revolution against the British was about anyhow?? Private mercenary armies (Blackwater anyone??) and unlawful arrests and searches of property and person.. these are the rights that your forefathers DIED for. Yet you don't even see when they are being taken away.. mind blowing.
Let me fess up here, I DO have training in electronics and if you look at the "device" you can see that all wires terminate correctly and their doesn't appear to be any holes drilled in the board. All this adds up to is "reasonable doubt" and it could have easily been verified by going up and asking her if you could take a look. The risk that she is a suicide bomber doesn't equal the right to take away EVERYONE'S rights. It never, EVER has. This is giving into terrorism at it's most fundamental level.
You are right, ANY device can be a bomb, especially electronics. Take out half the battery of a cell phone, radio, ipod, or laptop and replace it with C4 and you have yourself a very nice little bomb that lights up all nice when they ask you to take it out and turn it on. MORE than enough to bring down a plane. THESE are the types of devices that security should be looking out for. They should be experts in visual recognition of explosives devices. People who CAN take one glance in real time and say "Nope, not a bomb." Turns out these people have little training or aptitude for the very jobs that are supposed to be "Protecting" us.
The fact remains that they were wrong, again. How many times have they been right.. oh.. I forgot, NEVER! So, the nearly non-existant risk of a suicide bomber has trumped your rights, yet again. How many times does this have to happen before it happens to YOU?? Took out any books lately? People have been taken off planes for their reading material, are you wearing something "acceptable"? Only last week someone was kicked off a plane for wearing clothing "Too revealing" to fly in, yet perfectly acceptable to a conservative TV audience... how about speaking the correct language? People were thrown off planes for speaking Arabic.. HOW MUCH MORE??? Seriously?? What does it take for you Americans to wake up and demand your rights? It boggles the mind that the country of Jefferson would let such abuses take place. It is truly unbelievable.
If I can tell, at a glance, that it ISN'T a bomb.. then I would EXPECT a trained professional to know it even faster. Esspecially if you are up close and personal holding someone at gun point. If these so-called professionals can't tell a bomb from a hole in their asses, they aren't trained enough to do the job, period.
"With great power comes great responsibility". To bad that seems to be forgotten in the US today.
Take a look at the pics. Those officers were obviously close enough to make out the details. No zoom vision required. Hell, if I can make it out from some nebulous pics, someone standing in front of the girl should have NO problems.
This begs the question.. if they thought THAT was an explosive device, they obviously don't know an explosive from a resistor radio. Perhaps they should have some training BEFORE they are allowed to wave their guns in people's faces.
Either way, they either are untrained and incompetent to being doing the job they are assigned, or they were abusing their authority. Take your pick.
She is a MIT student in Electrical Eng and Comp Sci. She REALLY isn't thinking about what she is wearing.
Since when is "provoking authorities" ever been an excuse for taking someone's rights away? What happened to "It is better that a thousand guilty men be freed than one innocent man suffer for a crime he didn't commit", or to paraphrase "innocent until PROVEN guilty".
There are two parts to any crime, the action and the INTENT. Did she intend to deceive authorities into thinking the "device" is a bomb.. highly unlikely as she didn't refer to it as such. It was an ASSUMPTION that those police made. How many of these assumptions have paid off??.. well so far NONE. So lets grab another famous quote (paraphrased) from the founding fathers that sums it all up;
"those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither."
Those officers deserve neither liberty or security for what they have done, nor do those who gave them the power to act in such a manner in the first place.
Okay.. Maybe I was alone in my jr. Highschool electronics course and just fantasized about all the other students around me, but that sure as hell looks, very VERY obviously, like a bread board and nothing else. What exactly were they worried she was going to blow up, a resistor????? This not only goes to show the amazing lack of freedom that Americans have ATM, but also the general lack of education in the American people, especially among security and police professionals. A grade 12 education could have defused this in seconds, but instead we have a super bright person being oppressed by the stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
There are four reasons why I pirate games:
1) Support and Return policy: Once I have opened a game for the PC, that is it. I can't return the damn thing. So I had better be sure that it is worth my money before I put cash down. Also, game publishers refuse to actually support their games. I have Test Drive: Unlimited sitting on my shelf. It has only been played a very very few times, because thats how often it actuall worked! There is no support, and patches are few and far between and seem far more intrested in updating DRM than fixing game issues.
2) DRM. This is the BIG reason. Every game I have bought has been FAR more of a headache to install and play than games I have downloaded. In fact, I tend to keep using the pirated versions even AFTER I have bought the game. I just install with the valid CD key. Again, far less headaches than using the included DRM infested media (Bioshock required me to reformat the computer to get rid of it's DRM, even after I uninstalled the game).
3) Quality: Lets face it. Most of the games out there are crap. I ussually only play about an hour or two of a game before it gets deleted off my machine. As I am unable to take the game back to the store for a refund, I had better make sure the game is actually worth my hard earned cash.
4) Cost: Games are quite expensive for what you are getting. No other application would give you such poor support, poor quality, and buggy software and still charge a premium price. The least one should expect from such a premium is technical support.
Those are my reasons.
Pick up fork
add weight to fork (I prefer steak myself)
raise to mouth
repeat.
I am 6'2" tall an this routine has kept me at 170lbs for the past 16 years.
That would be about the worst thing you could do to them =P. However, it would also probibly be the worst thing you could do for yourself as well. In all seriousness, collect all the data that you have with the assistance of a lawyer, go down to the station and file a complaint. The police will have to act on it, essicially if it comes from a lawyer as the lawyer is an officer of the court.
That would be my advice.
I use PFSense at home. I have to admit the reason I use it is I am just too damn lazy to whip up a PF.Conf and PFSense makes it easy. For home use it is perfect. My upstream is ussually pinned (Not because of file sharing actually) but I don't notice any slowdowns in games or web as these are prioitized higher than my P2P traffic (which is a catch all, all undefined traffic goes in this que).
Works pefectly!
Cool. Found out from some of my clients (I do alot of IT support for law firms) that here in Canada that all laywers are both. It is just a older term that we never stopped useing.
It is a risk I would not, myself, take.
kid needs a "law talking dude". I really can't see any way that those charges could stick. Certainly if you bring up the opinion of a JUDGE it would have to be thrown out. I am not a lawyer, but isn't that a "precident"? Now there may be some issue because there was a sign involved, and that seems to be the target of the bill. However, free speach IS protected, dispite what missinformed Yanks may think, and your speach didn't fall over into the area of UNprotected speach we call "hate speech". That is, directly advocating violent action or discrimination of a person or people based on race, gender, religion or sexuality.
I belive in this case it would have to be proven that "cult" IS a derogitory term and I think it would be extremely hard to do so. I watch "cult" movies, listen to "cult" music, and I don't think of the word as an insult, but rather a run of the mill discription. On the otherhand, take the word "asshole" or "cunt".. in what case would these NOT be termed derogitory? That is the cutting edge of difference. Scientology will try and claim that THEY find the term offensive, and hense why the law should be enforced, but ANY word in that context could be offensive, should I but declare it so. I can find the letter "E" offensive and insulting all I like, but that isn't going to mean that if someone uses it on a sign that I have the right to have them arrested or the sign taken down.
I wouldn't worry if I were this kid. DEFINATLY get a Barister/Solicitor (You need someone who is both.. not sure which is which, but one just a laywer and the other represents you in court.. think Kingdom, you need a "Mr. Kingdom" =)). You could probibly find someone to take the case Pro Bono, or even legal aid might help. I am sure that after this you will have no shortage of willing helpers =).
You want a flat, non-relational "database"????? That my friend is called an ARRAY. There ya go, should take you about 10 lines of code.
Enjoy!
To say this is a bad idea would be an understatment. For one thing I would be surprised indeed if there were not botnets run and controlled by governments. I would be even more surprised if the US was not one of those governements, however; there is a difference between running a covert bot-net and creating one in the open covered by US laws. First a couple of things in this post really got alarm bells ringing for me.
"civilian computers may be attacked, but only if the enemy compels us."
What is being said here is that we won't attack your computer unless we have to, but I have to take the millitary's word for it. By nessesity the means which the enemy uses to "compel" would be secret, as would the responce. I may be slow but I am not stupid, I certainly don't trust the military with that kind of power.
"respect the law of armed conflict"
Are we to treat the entire internet now as an armed conflict? This is a very very slippry slope and there needs to be careful consideration before we apply it to something so broad and international and the network of networks we call "the internet". If it is a war, does that mean we can expect US soldiers storming data centres in Sweden in the name of the RIAA?
But those are broad moral implications, what about practical ones. Would it be legal to remove a DnD trojan or root kit? Would the antivirus vendors have to be involved? How about the security groups that hunt down disable the command and control funtions of botnets. From what I can tell removing such a bot or disabling it's command and control centres as discribed in this post, could be construded as treason.
There is another reason that it is better these things are done in secret. They are illegal and should remain so. The government should NEVER participate in them. So if they are done, and those who initiate them are wrong, their heads, their careers, their freedom goes, rightfully, on the block.
I work for a small IT company doing work mostly for law offices in our city. I fully, and completely agree that security is of prime importance and that we spend far to little time on it. The problem is guys, how do I get my CLIENTS to buy it? Most of them are fairly small and the attitude of "It can't happen to me" is all pervasive.
Sounds like you need something a little more serious then just plugging in a USB HD here. I have a couple of suggestions for you. The first is to set up a RAID^2 system. This is sometimes referred to as a RAID of RAIDs. Put simply, you make up three or more different RAID5 systems and then put those together in a RAID5 themselves. You loose a bit of data doing it, but you end up with a very robust system where it is almost impossible to loose data.
The other option is to set yourself up with ATA over Ethernet. This is a kind of SAN system and would require a dedicated network of the fastest network cards you can find. Myranet would be perfect for instance. One of the nice things about ATAoE is that you can grow your storage as you add new disks into the system.
Hope that helps! You can find plenty of data on both these systems by searching the net.. or just ask. I will do my best to help.
I beg of you.. Imagine the call..
User "I have forgotten my password"
admin "let me just reset it for you, the default password is a square with a star inside started at grid co-ordinates 0,3 going to 0,10 then down to 10,10... Don't forget to lift your pen at each courner"
Just kill me now please.
You ask the person and they refuse to answer. How can you be damn sure you're correct?
Well first off she DID reply. She said it was a piece of art and then walked around the courner. The second part was that she was asked by an INFORMATION clerk and NOT by a police officer. That clerk then went and called the authorities who came with guns drawn AFTER she had left the terminal and was looking for a cab.
So for one, first you ASK. That would be my suggestion. The authorities didn't ask, they just barged in and went at it.
What you advocate is the tyranny of anarchy, where the rights of the individual trump the rights of society. I'm sorry, but we THE PEOPLE means more than YOU the INDIVIDUAL.
Society doesn't have rights. At least none that are enshrined in the constitution. The only rights that are spelled out as such ARE individual rights. There are no other kinds. All sorts of atrocities have been committed in the name of the "Rights of the Society". The USSR used to go on about how in the Western world we had the Freedom To. The Freedom to say what we want, do what we want, act how we want, but in the USSR they had Freedom FROM. That is what you are advocating. Freedom From terrorism. The problem is the cost it comes at.
No where have I said there shouldn't be laws that govern the actions of individuals against individuals. Those laws exist to, as you say, protect society and have been as long as laws have existed. The constitution is there to insure that those laws that protect society don't interfere with the inalienable rights granted to you under the constitution. Anarchy means NO rules. In fact what I am talking about is the exact opposite of anarchy! Perhaps we need to look up a definition here (from dictionary.com):
anarchy
-noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
Where have I said that we shouldn't have government or law? In fact I am saying that the laws have NOT been followed and hence my ire. I think what you are saying that I am proposing a Tyranny of the Individual, and I am! So were the founding fathers. They had lived in a place where the good of the state trumped the good of the individual and decided that they wanted nothing to do with it. Went so far as to start a revolution!
You have stated that you are a patriot, but I have to ask, what exactly does that mean to you? My country right or wrong? Or does it mean that you will lay down your life to protect the liberty and the rights enshrined in the constitution? The individual rights that your founders fought King George to enshrine into one of the most important documents written in modern times.
There are no rights but individual rights and "The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance."
I am opposed to any detention based on anything BUT fact. That means that before you arrest the guy, you had better made DAMN certain that it is the correct one!
She wasn't "detained". She was thrown down at gun point. Her life was in immediate peril. She was THEN detained. At that point she was arrested and her person was searched. There was no warrent and a cursory examination would have shown there was no threat and as there was no provable intent (ie she didn't come out shouting "it's a bomb!") there was no crime. There is a HUGE difference between being questioned, and being threatened with death.
She was NOT in a "controlled area" as you say. That would refer to the security zone of the airport past (and a little before) the screening stations. She was in the public terminal, a zone that is most defiantly NOT a "controlled area". People can come and go as they please.
I have been thinking about this tonight. It comes down to this, "are you wiling to die to protect your freedom?". I don't mean join the army. I mean are you willing to put your life on the line for your and your children's liberty? I am, I know that the founding fathers of your country certainly were. So are you? That means running the risk of being blown up by a crazy person because you refuse to give up the rights that many many others have given their lives to give you. One more quote that seems apropos after that comment;
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". So are you a patriot, or a tyrant?
The justice system is based on a very simple principal;
"it is better that a thousand guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffers for a crime he did not commit."
This has been reduced to "innocent until proven guilty". But lets look at what you are saying further, because this was exactly the attitude that Jefferson was addressing with that aforementioned famous quote.
So they miss a bomb and it explodes killing a thousand people. Heavy stuff, and this is the argument that the Bush administration has used to take your rights away. However, if you should drive your car through a crowded mall you could kill tonnes of people! Does that mean that no one should have a drivers license? The DC sniper showed exactly how much terror a single person with a rifle could inflict on an entire city, yet there is no move to ban all assault and or sniper rifles. In fact every time someone tries there are howls of protest! How about flying? Terrorists used two planes to kill 3000 people, but you can still get a pilots license, same as before.
There are plenty of things that MIGHT happen. But a possible bad event in the future doesn't justify taking your rights away today. Increased security is good, and necessary in today's world. However, this kind of totalitarian, heavy handed approach doesn't do anything to insure your security. They WILL miss a bomb because sooner or later someone is bound to be smarter than they are. At that moment will you give up even MORE rights? The rest of the world has come to accept that terrorism DOES happen, however, they also know that you are FAR more likely to get struck by lightning than be killed in a terrorist incident. Furthermore they know that to increase security to the point where you are destroying rights means that the terrorists have won! This is the exact result that they wanted. The only way to beat them, is to live life as normal. Once you start taking away peoples liberty, then they have achieved their goals.
In the end we ALL are targets of terrorism. There is nothing you can do about it. The chances of another attack on American soil over time reach 100%. However, the chances of a terrorist attack in any one location is so very very slim that the only way you could "protect" yourself is to take away rights and force draconian security measures on your own, innocent, people. Even THIS won't protect you because of the laws of probability. The chances of another attack, over time, on US soil STILL reach 100%, no mater what you do. Because no mater how good your security, if someone really wants to beat it, they can.
So in the end it is a question that you have to ask yourself. If you are willing to give up rights NOW, to stop an event that is certain to happen sooner or later, what rights will you give up once that event HAS happened? ID cards? Restrictions on personal movement? Cameras on you 24 hours a day? How about someone tapping your phones and reading all your mail, just in case you might be planning something? How about it? When will you draw the line?
You don't have the freedom to wear devices that look like they could be bombs in an airport. Sorry, you just don't.
In fact you do. Your first amendment rights CAN'T be curtailed. There are certain situations that fall under "criminal intent" such as the much bally-hooed yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or pretending to have a gun in the security line up to board your plane. You still, however, have the right to wear something that says anything at all, anywhere you want. No questions asked. That is what the whole "Freedom of speech" thing is about. Of course authorities can always come up and ASK you what it is if there there a security question. However, their security doesn't trump YOUR rights. That is what the whole Boston Tea Party was about. THAT is the freedom that your founding fathers gave their lives to insure that you would have.
Just because you would happily give up some rights for security doesn't mean that it is right. Even if the majority agree with this (and majorities have done some pretty heinous things in the past, McCarthyism anyone?) it still isn't right. That is why the founding fathers made it so difficult to amend or change the constitution. They saw that there may be a time when the "majority" would agree to restrict their own rights, and they made it very very VERY difficult for that to happen. Of course they didn't see that some day the Constitution would be completely bypassed and the people wouldn't use their constitutionally protected rights to throw the tyrants out using force!
There is no situation where the taking away of rights is allowed. Wearing something that kinda, somewhat, a little bit looks like it could, maybe be a bomb, certainly isn't one of those situations. The question is one of degree. You can't make something a little bit illegal. Either it is, or it isn't. So when does it stop? If she can be thrown down at gun point and have her life literally threated for wearing a breadboard, does me wearing a picture of a bomb on my shirt count? From a distance it COULD look real! How about reading a book such as "Catcher in the Rye"? Don't laugh, people have already been thrown off planes for what they were reading. Talk about a slippery slope!
If she had gone in yelling "I have a bomb!" they would have a point. They were well within their authority to go and talk to her to confirm it wasn't a bomb, but not to throw her down at gun point for EXACTLY the reason as the fallout that is happening right now! It ONLY works if you are RIGHT. So far, every time this has happened, they have been WRONG. This means that in order to catch 0 terrorists, every one of us has to give up our rights. I have used this quote earlier in this thread, but it bears repeating:
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve niether"
If the direct words of one of the founding fathers doesn't move you, then I think you had better rethink your idea of what being an "American" is. Trust me, the REST of the world knows what "America" stands for, too bad the "United States" has seems to have forgotten.
You are correct, of course. There always COULD be a bomb. But if a cursory glance from someone with even a little training tells them that it is unlikely to be a bomb, then it makes more sense to go and ask them what it is before pulling out the guns.
Since always, if your provocation simulates a public emergency. See 'crowded theater, yelling FIRE in.' I'd say a reasonable person would conclude a fake bomb in an airport qualifies. In fact, there are laws on the books for specifically that - and postings in every airport to the same effect.
None of those things did she do. She went up to a counter and asked a question. This is FAR different from saying "I have a gun", or yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. If a "reasonable person would conclude a fake bomb in an airport" then they would know it was fake and therefore not a problem. She didn't try to board a flight or anything else of the sort, nor did she gesture or have ANYTHING other than the contents of her shirt. So if I have a picture of a bomb on my shirt and someone from a distance concludes that I am wearing a bomb does that give the police the right to throw me to the ground and arrest me??? Since when does "innocent until proven guilty" come with a stipulation????
No, she just had a breadboard, wires, and silly putty in an airport. Do you really believe that wasn't intent to simulate a bomb? Do you have a plausible alternate explanation? Come on. I can't think of a single acceptable reason you'd have those specific things in an airport.
I can't think of a single reason why NOT to have those things at an airport, or anywhere else for that matter. At our local airport the duty-free shop SELLS silly putty. Occam's razor means it is far more plausible to believe that she had a piece of art T-Shirt and some putty in her hand rather than she has some sort of bomb strapped to her chest that will wirelessly explode some putty in her hand. She doesn't need a reason to bring or not bring anything into an airport to pick someone up. Nor do you, or anyone else for that matter. This INCLUDES a gun if you are licensed to carry one.
Forgot Richard Reed? Based on your argument I'm sure you'd claim that having wires coming out of your shoe is freedom of expression. Additionally, based on the relative risk of a false alarm to a missed detection (ie, a night in jail for a moron vs. hundreds dead), I'm perfectly fine with the cops arresting absolutely anyone who does anything this dumb.
Richard Reed wasn't caught until he tried to LIGHT his shoe on a crowded plane. I believe he went into a bathroom, tired to light a FUSE (not wires.. there were no electronics involved) and someone smelled smoke. At that point he was detained. Airport security had the chance to stop him (this is where that training comes in) but did not. So the score is still nil. How many suicide bombs have there been in US history.. umm.. none. How many airport bombings? So, explain to me how you come up with a reasonable risk here??? There was no risk, there has been no risk, and so far, the risks that ARE out there have been completely missed by the security professionals who are supposed to detect it. You feel that way because it isn't YOU who is being arrested. But how long until YOU are? This person wasn't looking for attention, she was there to pick someone up. If she was trying to make a statment, fine, that is her RIGHT. You might not like it, but she has a right to say it without being threatened with death!
"those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither."
You are one of those that Jefferson was refering too.
lets go over some of them;
Rights violated:
Freedom of speech: These rights include symbolic language and actions (like her shirt)
Freedom of Assembly: She was meeting with her friend in a public space and was detained
Freedom from unlawful search and seizure: she was arrested and had her person and belongings searched
Freedom from malicious prosecution: Even after it was determined that the authorities made a mistake, instead of saying "sorry" and letting her go they charged her and made her post bail. She will get off on the charges, but not until she has spent thousands on legal fees that she will be unable to recoup.
I am sure you can come up with more if you think about it.
What, exactly, did you think the American revolution against the British was about anyhow?? Private mercenary armies (Blackwater anyone??) and unlawful arrests and searches of property and person.. these are the rights that your forefathers DIED for. Yet you don't even see when they are being taken away.. mind blowing.
And they got it wrong, again.
Sounds like they are incapable of doing their jobs.
Okay, so go up to her an LOOK.
Let me fess up here, I DO have training in electronics and if you look at the "device" you can see that all wires terminate correctly and their doesn't appear to be any holes drilled in the board. All this adds up to is "reasonable doubt" and it could have easily been verified by going up and asking her if you could take a look. The risk that she is a suicide bomber doesn't equal the right to take away EVERYONE'S rights. It never, EVER has. This is giving into terrorism at it's most fundamental level.
You are right, ANY device can be a bomb, especially electronics. Take out half the battery of a cell phone, radio, ipod, or laptop and replace it with C4 and you have yourself a very nice little bomb that lights up all nice when they ask you to take it out and turn it on. MORE than enough to bring down a plane. THESE are the types of devices that security should be looking out for. They should be experts in visual recognition of explosives devices. People who CAN take one glance in real time and say "Nope, not a bomb." Turns out these people have little training or aptitude for the very jobs that are supposed to be "Protecting" us.
The fact remains that they were wrong, again. How many times have they been right.. oh.. I forgot, NEVER! So, the nearly non-existant risk of a suicide bomber has trumped your rights, yet again. How many times does this have to happen before it happens to YOU?? Took out any books lately? People have been taken off planes for their reading material, are you wearing something "acceptable"? Only last week someone was kicked off a plane for wearing clothing "Too revealing" to fly in, yet perfectly acceptable to a conservative TV audience... how about speaking the correct language? People were thrown off planes for speaking Arabic.. HOW MUCH MORE??? Seriously?? What does it take for you Americans to wake up and demand your rights? It boggles the mind that the country of Jefferson would let such abuses take place. It is truly unbelievable.
If I can tell, at a glance, that it ISN'T a bomb.. then I would EXPECT a trained professional to know it even faster. Esspecially if you are up close and personal holding someone at gun point. If these so-called professionals can't tell a bomb from a hole in their asses, they aren't trained enough to do the job, period.
"With great power comes great responsibility". To bad that seems to be forgotten in the US today.
Take a look at the pics. Those officers were obviously close enough to make out the details. No zoom vision required. Hell, if I can make it out from some nebulous pics, someone standing in front of the girl should have NO problems.
This begs the question.. if they thought THAT was an explosive device, they obviously don't know an explosive from a resistor radio. Perhaps they should have some training BEFORE they are allowed to wave their guns in people's faces.
Either way, they either are untrained and incompetent to being doing the job they are assigned, or they were abusing their authority. Take your pick.
She is a MIT student in Electrical Eng and Comp Sci. She REALLY isn't thinking about what she is wearing.
Since when is "provoking authorities" ever been an excuse for taking someone's rights away? What happened to "It is better that a thousand guilty men be freed than one innocent man suffer for a crime he didn't commit", or to paraphrase "innocent until PROVEN guilty".
There are two parts to any crime, the action and the INTENT. Did she intend to deceive authorities into thinking the "device" is a bomb.. highly unlikely as she didn't refer to it as such. It was an ASSUMPTION that those police made. How many of these assumptions have paid off??.. well so far NONE. So lets grab another famous quote (paraphrased) from the founding fathers that sums it all up;
"those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither."
Those officers deserve neither liberty or security for what they have done, nor do those who gave them the power to act in such a manner in the first place.
Okay.. Maybe I was alone in my jr. Highschool electronics course and just fantasized about all the other students around me, but that sure as hell looks, very VERY obviously, like a bread board and nothing else. What exactly were they worried she was going to blow up, a resistor????? This not only goes to show the amazing lack of freedom that Americans have ATM, but also the general lack of education in the American people, especially among security and police professionals. A grade 12 education could have defused this in seconds, but instead we have a super bright person being oppressed by the stupid.
God help you all!