"Ultimately, if I want I hackable DVR badly enough I'll build my own."
That's exactly the same thing as saying that if you want hackable software, you'll write your own. Yes, it's an option, but it misses the point of the open source movement. The situation is so analogous it boggles my mind that people who should be getting it (because they presumably understand open source) don't seem to be getting it.
Here's the important point: nobody's compelling anyone to do anything.
It's your "God-given right" to hack hardware in the exact same way that it is to hack software, with all the same nuances. GPLv2 left a loophole for the former, GPLv3 doesn't. RMS and others are saying people "should" be using GPLv3 in the same way open source advocates in general are saying people "should" be open-sourcing their stuff, but nobody's trying to close the option of still using GPLv2.
I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this.
Really? And what if the person who posted all that information about you got it either by breaking into your house or car,
Then that's already adequately covered under laws against burglary and data theft. I'm not sure why you think adding yet another law (and one which has enormous additional consequences, at that) would add more protection for the victim in that case.
or by sifting through your rubbish? Or perhaps your PC got 0wn3d and hacked because you visited a dodgy web site and you're generally clueless when it comes to system security?
It's not the government's job to protect you from your own stupidity.
So how does this relate to the issue of airlines censoring internet access? Do you expect the airlines to act as a parent to your children because you can't be bothered to look over their shoulder while they use the in-flight internet access, or tell them they aren't allowed to use it?
Because if your concern is that the person sitting next to your kid is looking at porn and your child can actually see it, then you'll be happy to know that that person is guilty of disseminating pornography to a minor, which is a felony in the US. The laws already protect your child in that case. You don't need the airlines to add more nannying.
I don't know where it came from, but this idea that Clinton is socialist is hilarious. By any sane standard, she's a far-right conservative except on one or two points.
Lake Michigan may be a freshwater lake, but it still contains salt. According to my internets, a cubic foot of Lake Michigan water contains about a sixth of an ounce of salt.
So how exactly is the presence of random data remotely relevant to this discussion? You're going to find it no matter what, so how are you going to argue a point based on its presence? The prosecutor has to show some shred of evidence to prove that a hidden volume exists.
You greatly overestimate the technical competence of the judges and the inability of the prosecutor to just lie and be believed. If a prosecutor claims the presence of random data in an empty part of the HD indicates there is a hidden volume, he will generally not be contradicted, even though he is obviously lying. Chances are he doesn't even realise himself he's lying In a perfect world where judges and prosecutors are technically proficient and actually honest, yes, you're right. But as countless stories (many of which have been posted here) have shown again and again, your position that the best-case scenario will be common is naive.
If you think that's a paranoid fantasy, maybe you should look into how RIPA is actually being applied, and how competently judges tend to examine evidence when computers are involved. There are success stories, of course, but they're the exception, not the rule.
Random data is exactly what you would expect to find if there were no hidden volume
Random data is exactly what you'd expect to find if there were a hidden volume, as well. That's the entire point.
You think the prosecutor is going to find an expert who's willing to look like a jackass arguing a point that's obviously wrong?
You must be new.
Judges are on the whole older people whose job description does not involve knowing about computers, and certainly not the relatively obscure fields of cryptography and steganography. Convincing them of an innocent person's guilt wouldn't be particularly hard here for an unscrupulous prosecutor, even with a neutral expert witness.
What's the prosecutor basing his claim on? You have to have some evidence to support that a hidden volume exists before asking a judge for the key.
He'd be basing it on the presence of random data. And given the technophobia of many judges, I'd be willing to bet most would be swayed, especially when it's explained to them by an unscrupulous prosecutor.
I really don't care about one corrupt judge - I'll just appeal at the next level.
You say that like most people can afford to do that. That's not true even in cases where the loser pays the winner's legal fees.
I hope you're right about plausible deniability, but I don't share your confidence in the judicial system. Neither the British nor the American one.
Hidden volumes make this particularly relevant, actually. Suppose you don't have a hidden volume, but the prosecutor claims the empty part of your HD actually is one and compells you to hand over the keys, then what? You don't have the keys, so you can't hand them over, and there's no way to prove it actually isn't a hidden volume, so obstruction of justice or contempt of the court or whichever is added to your list of charges, even though you're perfectly innocent.
Plausible deniability is one thing, but it only takes a mildly corrupt judge (or one ignorant of cryptography) to make a criminal out of an innocent person. This is one reason RIPA in the UK is so fucked up.
The fact that you can't be compelled to hand over your keys protects you from this sort of abuse, and that, more than the constitution angle, is why I feel this is such an important precedent.
The idea of sexual selection goes back all the way to Charles Darwin himself. It was a point he famously disagreed on with Wallace. I'm not sure why the NY Times thinks this is news.
Without natural selection, we would evolve at the base mutation rate. That is to say, much, much faster than we would under normal circumstances. Natural selection *slows down* evolution. It also directs it, sure, but it in no way speeds it up.
If you were right, we'd be evolving faster than ever. Fortunately, though, there are still plenty of selective pressures. Cold and hunger may not kill people in the West quite as often as it used to anymore, but we still aren't immune to disease (especially when we're young), and our own pollution, a product of our new technologies, is certainly acting as quite an impressive selective pressure itself. And of course, most people don't have access to top notch healthcare, or a steady source of food, or even decent shelter.
1st don't advertise your networks security especial from the outside - in.
(...)
3rd don't state your future migration plans on secure architectures to the public.
Security through obscurity doesn't work in this context either.
Also, running AV software on a web server? What? I can't think of very many situations where that would be at all defensible. The rest of the article reads like a marketing presentation. Very enterprise.
First, it has been shown over and over again that if you commit these crimes once, you're very likely to do it again.
Reality disagrees with you. Violent sex offenders are generally considerably less likely to reoffend than pretty much any other class of criminal.
Megan's law is a disgrace, especially considering that something as innocent as mooning someone while drunk or peeing in a bush when you think nobody's looking can get you in that database.
It's a reference to an early '90s campaign against piracy. Nothing wrong with a classic pop culture reference.
Trust me, nobody who read that headline thought it was referring to actually copying actual floppy disks. Everyone knew it was about intellectual property, and since the big IP trolls nowadays are the RIAA and MPAA, I'd guess most people understood this was about them.
Those "cushy Country Club" prisons don't exist. I don't know where that meme came from, but if it's responsible for the wave of self-proclaimed "tough on crime" politicians, I think it's time it died.
Slashdot Mirror
And if one of the people killed in a city-wide killing spree would have turned out to be the next Hitler?
"Ultimately, if I want I hackable DVR badly enough I'll build my own."
That's exactly the same thing as saying that if you want hackable software, you'll write your own. Yes, it's an option, but it misses the point of the open source movement. The situation is so analogous it boggles my mind that people who should be getting it (because they presumably understand open source) don't seem to be getting it.
Here's the important point: nobody's compelling anyone to do anything.
It's your "God-given right" to hack hardware in the exact same way that it is to hack software, with all the same nuances. GPLv2 left a loophole for the former, GPLv3 doesn't.
RMS and others are saying people "should" be using GPLv3 in the same way open source advocates in general are saying people "should" be open-sourcing their stuff, but nobody's trying to close the option of still using GPLv2.
I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this.
The industry did try to prevent people ripping LPs to cassettes back in the day. That's why you pay a tax on blank media now.
And then the first time a foreign-looking person gets up to go the bathroom, he'll be shot by a nervous redneck who assumes he must be a terrorist.
The fact that this "an armed society is a polite society" meme is still around would be hilarious if it weren't so frightening.
So how does this relate to the issue of airlines censoring internet access? Do you expect the airlines to act as a parent to your children because you can't be bothered to look over their shoulder while they use the in-flight internet access, or tell them they aren't allowed to use it?
Because if your concern is that the person sitting next to your kid is looking at porn and your child can actually see it, then you'll be happy to know that that person is guilty of disseminating pornography to a minor, which is a felony in the US.
The laws already protect your child in that case. You don't need the airlines to add more nannying.
I don't know where it came from, but this idea that Clinton is socialist is hilarious. By any sane standard, she's a far-right conservative except on one or two points.
And since that motion is caused by the wind, it'd be the most expensive wind turbine on the market. And probably the least efficient.
Lake Michigan may be a freshwater lake, but it still contains salt. According to my internets, a cubic foot of Lake Michigan water contains about a sixth of an ounce of salt.
Are you kidding? In the US? Where have you been the past decade?
You greatly overestimate the technical competence of the judges and the inability of the prosecutor to just lie and be believed. If a prosecutor claims the presence of random data in an empty part of the HD indicates there is a hidden volume, he will generally not be contradicted, even though he is obviously lying. Chances are he doesn't even realise himself he's lying
In a perfect world where judges and prosecutors are technically proficient and actually honest, yes, you're right. But as countless stories (many of which have been posted here) have shown again and again, your position that the best-case scenario will be common is naive.
If you think that's a paranoid fantasy, maybe you should look into how RIPA is actually being applied, and how competently judges tend to examine evidence when computers are involved. There are success stories, of course, but they're the exception, not the rule.
Random data is exactly what you'd expect to find if there were a hidden volume, as well. That's the entire point.
You must be new.
Judges are on the whole older people whose job description does not involve knowing about computers, and certainly not the relatively obscure fields of cryptography and steganography. Convincing them of an innocent person's guilt wouldn't be particularly hard here for an unscrupulous prosecutor, even with a neutral expert witness.
He'd be basing it on the presence of random data. And given the technophobia of many judges, I'd be willing to bet most would be swayed, especially when it's explained to them by an unscrupulous prosecutor.
You say that like most people can afford to do that. That's not true even in cases where the loser pays the winner's legal fees.
I hope you're right about plausible deniability, but I don't share your confidence in the judicial system. Neither the British nor the American one.
Hidden volumes make this particularly relevant, actually.
Suppose you don't have a hidden volume, but the prosecutor claims the empty part of your HD actually is one and compells you to hand over the keys, then what? You don't have the keys, so you can't hand them over, and there's no way to prove it actually isn't a hidden volume, so obstruction of justice or contempt of the court or whichever is added to your list of charges, even though you're perfectly innocent.
Plausible deniability is one thing, but it only takes a mildly corrupt judge (or one ignorant of cryptography) to make a criminal out of an innocent person.
This is one reason RIPA in the UK is so fucked up.
The fact that you can't be compelled to hand over your keys protects you from this sort of abuse, and that, more than the constitution angle, is why I feel this is such an important precedent.
Between this and Miguel de Icaza, it looks like I'll finally be switching to KDE.
The idea of sexual selection goes back all the way to Charles Darwin himself. It was a point he famously disagreed on with Wallace.
I'm not sure why the NY Times thinks this is news.
Good to see the type of ignorance that led to the eugenics movement is still alive and well in the world today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Without natural selection, we would evolve at the base mutation rate. That is to say, much, much faster than we would under normal circumstances.
Natural selection *slows down* evolution. It also directs it, sure, but it in no way speeds it up.
If you were right, we'd be evolving faster than ever.
Fortunately, though, there are still plenty of selective pressures. Cold and hunger may not kill people in the West quite as often as it used to anymore, but we still aren't immune to disease (especially when we're young), and our own pollution, a product of our new technologies, is certainly acting as quite an impressive selective pressure itself.
And of course, most people don't have access to top notch healthcare, or a steady source of food, or even decent shelter.
Sexual selection is hardly a new concept. The fact that we do it as well as other animals isn't that surprising.
And what "current lull"?
I like the NY Times, but it has issues with science. Though no more so than the rest of the mass media, I guess.
News at 11.
Also, running AV software on a web server? What? I can't think of very many situations where that would be at all defensible.
The rest of the article reads like a marketing presentation. Very enterprise.
There are a lot of people with mod points out there who don't seem to have access to dictionaries.
Megan's law is a disgrace, especially considering that something as innocent as mooning someone while drunk or peeing in a bush when you think nobody's looking can get you in that database.
It's a reference to an early '90s campaign against piracy. Nothing wrong with a classic pop culture reference.
Trust me, nobody who read that headline thought it was referring to actually copying actual floppy disks. Everyone knew it was about intellectual property, and since the big IP trolls nowadays are the RIAA and MPAA, I'd guess most people understood this was about them.
Those "cushy Country Club" prisons don't exist. I don't know where that meme came from, but if it's responsible for the wave of self-proclaimed "tough on crime" politicians, I think it's time it died.