Re:Controlling sexual predators through technology
on
Mind Over Machine
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Of course. And when this project becomes successful, we can implement it on convicted murders, robbers, terrorists, communists, tax-evaders, cheaters, liars,...
But we shouldn't stop there, the ultimate goal is to prevent crime. So we should implement it on everybody, just in case even a law-abiding citizen starts having impure thoughts about the validity of the president-for-life's reign on the country.
This is yet another reason why all scientists and engineers need to hire PR people. All they had to do was declare that they have "patented a method to generate rejection-free organs from stem cells," and use the term "replicating" instead of "cloning." Half the world would've been happy and the other half would've been too busy debating the validity of the patent to notice anything.
As far as I can tell, this only adds security (through obscurity) against remote attacks made directly to the server. However, a lot of attacks are made indirectly, by compromising the client and sniffing the client's communications.
This is where obscurity fails, whether it's through plain old passwords or other secret handshakes. All the attacker has to do is gain access to the client, put some sniffer programs on it (key-loggers, packet-sniffers) and record all activities. They'll get all layers of security through obscurity in a single easy-to-use package.
The problem here isn't what programs to use today, the problem is how much can you trust a single program?
Maybe this new program is better and I should try it out. But I should still run established programs to keep an eye on the new one on the block.
To be extra paranoid, you should always run at least two programs of any kind (spyware detector, anti-virus, etc). You never know when one program, whether new or existing, becomes a double-agent or trojaned.;-)
"A proposed name that looks, sounds or suggests similar ideas as an existing business name or trade mark is not eligible for incorporation under the CBCA if it is likely to cause confusion with the other business name or trade mark. The Act gives the Director, CBCA the responsibility to decide whether your proposed name is likely to cause confusion."
In other words, a corporation's name may not be valid if the authorities believe the phonetic resemblance causes confusion. In this case, it's debatable whether a.com domain name should be treated the same way as a corporation name, and whether the phonetic resemblance is a problem. But yes, it would be worth the court's time to look at it.
That's really weird. I have the same pay as you go plan with Rogers. When I signed up, I asked explicitly to not activate the voicemail and I never get charged for incoming calls that I don't answer (the phone just keeps ringing). In fact, I mostly use the cell phone as a cheap numeric pager and apart from poor reception, I haven't had any complaints.
It sounds like the rep didn't really deactivate your voicemail, but reset it. You should call them and ask them to deactivate it completely.
"... but if it's pre-installed they might try it and like it."
But it's not pre-installed, it costs $200. If a user wants to try VoIP, they can go to iconnecthere (or similar service), download the software and signup for a free trial. It takes just a few minutes.
Umm, the past year, I've flown quite a few times between Vancouver and Ottawa, and I haven't run into any of the things you mention. At every security check, I simply separate my electronics and they scan it for explosive residue without turning it on. That's all.
I've never had any hassles whatsoever, and it's always been consistent. I'm definitely not white and I look quite like a would-be terrorist, so it's not like they're being discriminating. In fact I was going to post a comment about how security checks in Canada have been nice and non-intrusive.
I wonder, have your experiences in Canada been with internal flights or flights going to the police^WUnited States?
Re:The unintended benefits of pollution
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 1
The problem is, pollution might work in our favor today (not that I'm saying it does, but theoretically speaking), but it might not work tomorrow when the climatic tendencies reverse themselves.
A more ideal solution would be to decrease pollution and at the same time devise ways to control the climate. This way, we'll have to worry about one less problem when it comes time to control.
In general, the more we use non-polluting energy sources, the less parameters we'll be introducing into nature, and the easier it'll be for us to control said nature. Granted, one way to control climate might be to introduce more pollution, but ideally we'd like to do that in a controlled manner as opposed to just letting loose millions of oil-burning machines.
Agreed that legs are better than wheels. But are 2 legs better than 4 or 6? It seems to me that a quadruped is more stable and can run faster too. The current advantage we have over animals is that we use 2 of our 4 limbs for manipulating objects. But a robot can be easily fitted with 4 legs and 2 or 4 arms. In other words, it's better to make a robot that doesn't necessarily look humanoid.
What kind of risk? Financial risk, hoping the operation will be profitable? Well I don't have the money, but there is always some bank or philantropist that can be convinced.
Or are you asking about risking my life to go on a space tour? the answer is Hell YEAH! Perhaps Americans have become overly safety-wimps^Wconscience, but in the rest of the world, we pay to take risky thrill-rides every day, the example that comes to mind is skydiving. And this'll be the ultimate thrill-ride if nothing else.
Are you seriously asking me that, if I'm presented with the opportunity to go for a ride into space, I'll turn it down because I might die? Just try to stop me...
First off, if Shaw wants to impose limits, that's their choice. But if they do, they must provide a way for their customers to check their usage. Your father's case is a good example. If he had some way of checking his bandwidth usage, he might have noticed the problem earlier and kept everyone happy.
I'm with Shaw now and I was aware of the limits when I signed up (both through stories heard and by googling for "shaw internet review"). They actually mention these limits on their website, although sometimes it's a bit buried. First, they advertise the service as "unlimited time," and their Acceptable Use Policy states:
The guidelines for Bandwidth Usage/month for each business service package are the following:... Residential services do not have specific guidelines of this nature as the Service is not intended for business applications. Shaw reserves the right to set specific limits for Bandwidth Usage and charge for excessive Bandwidth Usage for residential Services at any time.
Having said all this, they should be a lot more forward and specific about their limits. Also, Shaw support and sales people are under a lot of pressure to sell the internet service (Shaw's a really crappy company to work for), so they usually forget to mention these limits to people signing up.
I'd love to use DSL myself, but Telus insists that I must also sign up for a telephone account (sure, sure) and that won't happen any time soon.
I believe that part of the article was commenting on using biometrics at border-crossings not airports (yes, it still would not stop most terrorists). So the airlines don't get financially affected, the US government does. At airports, biometrics are used to control access to secure areas, fair enough. At border-crossings, biometrics are used to verify the ID of people with special visas like INSPASS. I suppose even for internal flights the INS will check foreigners' visas (to find visa overstays), but that's still up to the government, not the airlines.
The future plan is to incorporate biometrics into all US-issued visas and passports. That's where the problem lies:
The cost of the new system will not just be financial. All visas will now have to be issued face to face, so that scanning can take place.
I'd guess the increased cost will be added to the price of US visas. For me, the scary part is this:
And the new rules specify that by October 26th 2004, all countries whose nationals can enter America without a visa--including western European countries, Japan and Australia--must begin issuing passports that contain biometric data too.
Basically, the US is making other countries add biometrics to their passports. If you live outside US, you might want to contact your government rep and urge them to cut the reciprocal agreement with US for not needing visas. If US wants everybody who visits them to carry biometric data, let them make their own copy.
Like I said... both sides are being childish. But just because one side does something childish, it doesn't justify that the other side should behave the same way.
Yeah well, I used "service" as a generic term for an organization's product, beit a tangible product, service, publication, religion, etc. And in case you want to pick any further, I used "organization" as a generic term for a corportation, volunteer group, religious group, sporting league, etc.
Whether the owners of LG.net are right is irrelevant. They're trying to remedy their problems by starting a new version which uses a similar name and logo. If their goal is to fight SSC, they should have stood their ground and fought for LG.com. If their goal is to continue their publication without SSC, they should have started a new one under a totally different name and carried on, never mentioning SSC again.
SSC is being childish with their trademark, C&D, etc. The ex-volunteers are being childish by starting a new service with a name and logo that is all but indistinguishable from the original.
If the volunteers didn't like what SSC was doing, they should've done one of two things: stand and fight them, start a new service with a new name. History is full of instances where members of an organization became dissatisfied and started their own spin-off. In most of these cases, the spun-off group took on a new name and carried on as just another competitor, even if the members were the founders of the original org. This is the mature, respectable thing to do.
The.net volunteers are being nothing but childish by starting a spin-off that mimics the original service, by name and logo, and by actively telling people to unsubscribe from the old service. They should just take on a new name, do what they used to do well, and let the better service win. Respectably.
Anybody has the right to file a patent and attempt to license its technology (as long as the patent makes sense, which is not always the case with software patents, but that's another story).
The right way to do it: get the patent, announce the technology and licensing terms for it, sell licenses to however's interested. This way, manufacturers can decide whether they want to invest into that particular technology or find an alternative.
The wrong way to do it: get the patent, wait for a large number of manufacturers to widely use the technology, then announce licensing terms. This way, manufacturers have already invested a lot of resources into the tech and have no choice but to pay for the license, because switching to an alternative would cost them even more.
In an ideal world, the wrong way should be illegal and carry criminal sentences for extortion.
Not very realistic unfortunately, when companies have invested so much in integrating (and accepting) some of the flawed functionality in IE.
Are you talking about internet companies or companies using IE for their intranet apps? If a company is using IE-specific functionality to offer services over the internet, they deserve to get bitten periodically. I have no sympathy for any company that provides a service to the "public" but forces them to use one specific browser.
On the other hand, it is quite common to use IE-specific functionality for intranet applications. That's not a problem, one assumes that the intranet server is safe. The solution is to continue to use IE for intranet (and remove all links to internet sites from intranet apps), but use a more secure product to access the internet.
Example: These days, a common MS worm is spread through email attachments. Linux proponents point out that, even if such a worm was designed for Linux, the attachment would be executed by an unpriviledged user. With local root exploits, this argument becomes irrelevant, because if there are local root exploits, every user is effectively root.
What you want is Ricochet. I used it for about 6 months to "telecommute" from my patio, the park, or any other place I felt like. I used VPN and it was reasonably fast.
It's quite misguided to say the patent system as a whole is no good. Patents work well in some situations but not others. You can't cite a couple of bad cases from the software industry and conculde that the patent system is broken altogether.
E.g. pharmaceutical companies need to do a lot of research before creating new useful medicine. Research costs money and they can't make it back within just a couple of months of being first-to-market. They get a few years to control the market, make a profit, and move on. Another example, if you invent a better shovel, it'll be copied within a month easy, and there is no way you can make a profit from being first-to-market because people don't buy shovels every month. You need a patent of a few years to let you make some decent profit.
Patents work well for some industries but not others. There is also the way patents are used. Dolby Labs made a great use of their invention in noise reduction system. Nobody boycotts Dolby Labs, in fact everybody welcomes them, even though their patent and licensing increased the price of audio-visual equipment.
Dolby invented something, made it available to the public while making an honest profit and everybody's happy. Contrast that to the company who pops up with some vague patent and issues C&Ds or ridiculous invoices to the world, years after the public adoption of the patented system. We need to address and fix the latter stunts, not drop the entire patent system.
I'm guessing by "welfare" they really mean "healthcare." Looks like that quote comes from this page. That organization is Japanese and it's possible they don't quite understand the meaning of some English words. To some people for whom English is a foreign language, "welfare" sounds like "well fare" or the pursuit of making sick people well, so they assume "welfare" is the same as "healthcare." Basically, it's the internet being the meeting place of people from many cultures. Give them the benefit of doubt... Just a thought.
Yeah but the old mp3.com was more than just a bunch of mp3s to download. Each artist or group had their own webpage, so they could add some words, point to their own website if they had one. It was more of a showcase, a marketing tool, than a simple download site. I remember I used to download the mp3s then go back and look at the artist's page whenever I found someone with interesting material.
IIRC, they even had ways to sell the material on CDs and pay royalty to the artists. I don't know how successful that was.
Also, what you consider "best of" might not be what I like, no offense intended, tastes vary. mp3.com hosted the music regardless of what the website's owners thought of it.
OK mp3.org is taken, but it seems to me, this is an ideal time for the artists to get together and start their own version of mp3.com, the way it was a couple of years ago, when it concentrated on making non-mainstream music available worldwide.
The artists should get together, chip in a few dollars/euros each and buy the material back, start their own website. The material is being destroyed anyway, so Vivendi shouldn't have too much of a problem selling it back to the authors.
The only problem is the notice is so short. But if the artists don't get together and do it now, another "entrepeneur" will buy the material for cheap and screw it up even more.
Hmmm, that's a good question (I don't know the answer): can surveillance be compared to arresting?
If I'm arrested, I know exactly what's happening to me, I can get a lawyer to advise me, and I can say or not say things based on the situation.
If I'm being eavesdropped on, I probably don't know that, I will say all kinds of things, whether or not they're related to the crime I'm being suspected of, I have no way of defending myself based on the situation.
The other question is, how easier is it to get an arrest warrant as opposed to an OnStar eavesdropping warrant? Will the judge be less careful dishing out an eavesdropping warrant because it requires less resources and less explanations if it turns out to be the wrong person?
In a way, it's like comparing the stealing of a CD from the store to the copying of mp3s off the 'net.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. And when this project becomes successful, we can implement it on convicted murders, robbers, terrorists, communists, tax-evaders, cheaters, liars, ...
But we shouldn't stop there, the ultimate goal is to prevent crime. So we should implement it on everybody, just in case even a law-abiding citizen starts having impure thoughts about the validity of the president-for-life's reign on the country.
This is yet another reason why all scientists and engineers need to hire PR people. All they had to do was declare that they have "patented a method to generate rejection-free organs from stem cells," and use the term "replicating" instead of "cloning." Half the world would've been happy and the other half would've been too busy debating the validity of the patent to notice anything.
As far as I can tell, this only adds security (through obscurity) against remote attacks made directly to the server. However, a lot of attacks are made indirectly, by compromising the client and sniffing the client's communications.
This is where obscurity fails, whether it's through plain old passwords or other secret handshakes. All the attacker has to do is gain access to the client, put some sniffer programs on it (key-loggers, packet-sniffers) and record all activities. They'll get all layers of security through obscurity in a single easy-to-use package.
The problem here isn't what programs to use today, the problem is how much can you trust a single program?
;-)
Maybe this new program is better and I should try it out. But I should still run established programs to keep an eye on the new one on the block.
To be extra paranoid, you should always run at least two programs of any kind (spyware detector, anti-virus, etc). You never know when one program, whether new or existing, becomes a double-agent or trojaned.
In Canada, yes, as per Corporations Canada web site [emphasis mine]:
.com domain name should be treated the same way as a corporation name, and whether the phonetic resemblance is a problem. But yes, it would be worth the court's time to look at it.
"A proposed name that looks, sounds or suggests similar ideas as an existing business name or trade mark is not eligible for incorporation under the CBCA if it is likely to cause confusion with the other business name or trade mark. The Act gives the Director, CBCA the responsibility to decide whether your proposed name is likely to cause confusion."
In other words, a corporation's name may not be valid if the authorities believe the phonetic resemblance causes confusion. In this case, it's debatable whether a
That's really weird. I have the same pay as you go plan with Rogers. When I signed up, I asked explicitly to not activate the voicemail and I never get charged for incoming calls that I don't answer (the phone just keeps ringing). In fact, I mostly use the cell phone as a cheap numeric pager and apart from poor reception, I haven't had any complaints.
It sounds like the rep didn't really deactivate your voicemail, but reset it. You should call them and ask them to deactivate it completely.
"... but if it's pre-installed they might try it and like it."
But it's not pre-installed, it costs $200. If a user wants to try VoIP, they can go to iconnecthere (or similar service), download the software and signup for a free trial. It takes just a few minutes.
Umm, the past year, I've flown quite a few times between Vancouver and Ottawa, and I haven't run into any of the things you mention. At every security check, I simply separate my electronics and they scan it for explosive residue without turning it on. That's all.
I've never had any hassles whatsoever, and it's always been consistent. I'm definitely not white and I look quite like a would-be terrorist, so it's not like they're being discriminating. In fact I was going to post a comment about how security checks in Canada have been nice and non-intrusive.
I wonder, have your experiences in Canada been with internal flights or flights going to the police^WUnited States?
The problem is, pollution might work in our favor today (not that I'm saying it does, but theoretically speaking), but it might not work tomorrow when the climatic tendencies reverse themselves.
A more ideal solution would be to decrease pollution and at the same time devise ways to control the climate. This way, we'll have to worry about one less problem when it comes time to control.
In general, the more we use non-polluting energy sources, the less parameters we'll be introducing into nature, and the easier it'll be for us to control said nature. Granted, one way to control climate might be to introduce more pollution, but ideally we'd like to do that in a controlled manner as opposed to just letting loose millions of oil-burning machines.
Agreed that legs are better than wheels. But are 2 legs better than 4 or 6? It seems to me that a quadruped is more stable and can run faster too. The current advantage we have over animals is that we use 2 of our 4 limbs for manipulating objects. But a robot can be easily fitted with 4 legs and 2 or 4 arms. In other words, it's better to make a robot that doesn't necessarily look humanoid.
What kind of risk? Financial risk, hoping the operation will be profitable? Well I don't have the money, but there is always some bank or philantropist that can be convinced.
Or are you asking about risking my life to go on a space tour? the answer is Hell YEAH! Perhaps Americans have become overly safety-wimps^Wconscience, but in the rest of the world, we pay to take risky thrill-rides every day, the example that comes to mind is skydiving. And this'll be the ultimate thrill-ride if nothing else.
Are you seriously asking me that, if I'm presented with the opportunity to go for a ride into space, I'll turn it down because I might die? Just try to stop me...
First off, if Shaw wants to impose limits, that's their choice. But if they do, they must provide a way for their customers to check their usage. Your father's case is a good example. If he had some way of checking his bandwidth usage, he might have noticed the problem earlier and kept everyone happy.
... Residential services do not have specific guidelines of this nature as the Service is not intended for business applications. Shaw reserves the right to set specific limits for Bandwidth Usage and charge for excessive Bandwidth Usage for residential Services at any time.
I'm with Shaw now and I was aware of the limits when I signed up (both through stories heard and by googling for "shaw internet review"). They actually mention these limits on their website, although sometimes it's a bit buried. First, they advertise the service as "unlimited time," and their Acceptable Use Policy states:
The guidelines for Bandwidth Usage/month for each business service package are the following:
Having said all this, they should be a lot more forward and specific about their limits. Also, Shaw support and sales people are under a lot of pressure to sell the internet service (Shaw's a really crappy company to work for), so they usually forget to mention these limits to people signing up.
I'd love to use DSL myself, but Telus insists that I must also sign up for a telephone account (sure, sure) and that won't happen any time soon.
I believe that part of the article was commenting on using biometrics at border-crossings not airports (yes, it still would not stop most terrorists). So the airlines don't get financially affected, the US government does. At airports, biometrics are used to control access to secure areas, fair enough. At border-crossings, biometrics are used to verify the ID of people with special visas like INSPASS. I suppose even for internal flights the INS will check foreigners' visas (to find visa overstays), but that's still up to the government, not the airlines.
The future plan is to incorporate biometrics into all US-issued visas and passports. That's where the problem lies:
The cost of the new system will not just be financial. All visas will now have to be issued face to face, so that scanning can take place.
I'd guess the increased cost will be added to the price of US visas. For me, the scary part is this:
And the new rules specify that by October 26th 2004, all countries whose nationals can enter America without a visa--including western European countries, Japan and Australia--must begin issuing passports that contain biometric data too.
Basically, the US is making other countries add biometrics to their passports. If you live outside US, you might want to contact your government rep and urge them to cut the reciprocal agreement with US for not needing visas. If US wants everybody who visits them to carry biometric data, let them make their own copy.
Like I said... both sides are being childish. But just because one side does something childish, it doesn't justify that the other side should behave the same way.
Yeah well, I used "service" as a generic term for an organization's product, beit a tangible product, service, publication, religion, etc. And in case you want to pick any further, I used "organization" as a generic term for a corportation, volunteer group, religious group, sporting league, etc.
Whether the owners of LG.net are right is irrelevant. They're trying to remedy their problems by starting a new version which uses a similar name and logo. If their goal is to fight SSC, they should have stood their ground and fought for LG.com. If their goal is to continue their publication without SSC, they should have started a new one under a totally different name and carried on, never mentioning SSC again.
SSC is being childish with their trademark, C&D, etc. The ex-volunteers are being childish by starting a new service with a name and logo that is all but indistinguishable from the original.
.net volunteers are being nothing but childish by starting a spin-off that mimics the original service, by name and logo, and by actively telling people to unsubscribe from the old service. They should just take on a new name, do what they used to do well, and let the better service win. Respectably.
If the volunteers didn't like what SSC was doing, they should've done one of two things: stand and fight them, start a new service with a new name. History is full of instances where members of an organization became dissatisfied and started their own spin-off. In most of these cases, the spun-off group took on a new name and carried on as just another competitor, even if the members were the founders of the original org. This is the mature, respectable thing to do.
The
Anybody has the right to file a patent and attempt to license its technology (as long as the patent makes sense, which is not always the case with software patents, but that's another story).
The right way to do it: get the patent, announce the technology and licensing terms for it, sell licenses to however's interested. This way, manufacturers can decide whether they want to invest into that particular technology or find an alternative.
The wrong way to do it: get the patent, wait for a large number of manufacturers to widely use the technology, then announce licensing terms. This way, manufacturers have already invested a lot of resources into the tech and have no choice but to pay for the license, because switching to an alternative would cost them even more.
In an ideal world, the wrong way should be illegal and carry criminal sentences for extortion.
Not very realistic unfortunately, when companies have invested so much in integrating (and accepting) some of the flawed functionality in IE.
Are you talking about internet companies or companies using IE for their intranet apps? If a company is using IE-specific functionality to offer services over the internet, they deserve to get bitten periodically. I have no sympathy for any company that provides a service to the "public" but forces them to use one specific browser.
On the other hand, it is quite common to use IE-specific functionality for intranet applications. That's not a problem, one assumes that the intranet server is safe. The solution is to continue to use IE for intranet (and remove all links to internet sites from intranet apps), but use a more secure product to access the internet.
Example: These days, a common MS worm is spread through email attachments. Linux proponents point out that, even if such a worm was designed for Linux, the attachment would be executed by an unpriviledged user. With local root exploits, this argument becomes irrelevant, because if there are local root exploits, every user is effectively root.
What you want is Ricochet. I used it for about 6 months to "telecommute" from my patio, the park, or any other place I felt like. I used VPN and it was reasonably fast.
It's quite misguided to say the patent system as a whole is no good. Patents work well in some situations but not others. You can't cite a couple of bad cases from the software industry and conculde that the patent system is broken altogether.
E.g. pharmaceutical companies need to do a lot of research before creating new useful medicine. Research costs money and they can't make it back within just a couple of months of being first-to-market. They get a few years to control the market, make a profit, and move on. Another example, if you invent a better shovel, it'll be copied within a month easy, and there is no way you can make a profit from being first-to-market because people don't buy shovels every month. You need a patent of a few years to let you make some decent profit.
Patents work well for some industries but not others. There is also the way patents are used. Dolby Labs made a great use of their invention in noise reduction system. Nobody boycotts Dolby Labs, in fact everybody welcomes them, even though their patent and licensing increased the price of audio-visual equipment.
Dolby invented something, made it available to the public while making an honest profit and everybody's happy. Contrast that to the company who pops up with some vague patent and issues C&Ds or ridiculous invoices to the world, years after the public adoption of the patented system. We need to address and fix the latter stunts, not drop the entire patent system.
I'm guessing by "welfare" they really mean "healthcare." Looks like that quote comes from this page. That organization is Japanese and it's possible they don't quite understand the meaning of some English words. To some people for whom English is a foreign language, "welfare" sounds like "well fare" or the pursuit of making sick people well, so they assume "welfare" is the same as "healthcare." Basically, it's the internet being the meeting place of people from many cultures. Give them the benefit of doubt... Just a thought.
Yeah but the old mp3.com was more than just a bunch of mp3s to download. Each artist or group had their own webpage, so they could add some words, point to their own website if they had one. It was more of a showcase, a marketing tool, than a simple download site. I remember I used to download the mp3s then go back and look at the artist's page whenever I found someone with interesting material.
IIRC, they even had ways to sell the material on CDs and pay royalty to the artists. I don't know how successful that was.
Also, what you consider "best of" might not be what I like, no offense intended, tastes vary. mp3.com hosted the music regardless of what the website's owners thought of it.
OK mp3.org is taken, but it seems to me, this is an ideal time for the artists to get together and start their own version of mp3.com, the way it was a couple of years ago, when it concentrated on making non-mainstream music available worldwide.
The artists should get together, chip in a few dollars/euros each and buy the material back, start their own website. The material is being destroyed anyway, so Vivendi shouldn't have too much of a problem selling it back to the authors.
The only problem is the notice is so short. But if the artists don't get together and do it now, another "entrepeneur" will buy the material for cheap and screw it up even more.
Hmmm, that's a good question (I don't know the answer): can surveillance be compared to arresting?
If I'm arrested, I know exactly what's happening to me, I can get a lawyer to advise me, and I can say or not say things based on the situation.
If I'm being eavesdropped on, I probably don't know that, I will say all kinds of things, whether or not they're related to the crime I'm being suspected of, I have no way of defending myself based on the situation.
The other question is, how easier is it to get an arrest warrant as opposed to an OnStar eavesdropping warrant? Will the judge be less careful dishing out an eavesdropping warrant because it requires less resources and less explanations if it turns out to be the wrong person?
In a way, it's like comparing the stealing of a CD from the store to the copying of mp3s off the 'net.