I have no particular gripe with this information being leaked to the public. I do have a gripe with Wikileaks rushing to publish it and putting people at risk by including names and everything else.
Fact: There are names of informants in these documents. Nobody, not even wikileaks, has disputed this. Fact: The Taliban has stated to the media that they are "reviewing" these documents, and intend to "punish" people found to be cooperating with the NATO militaries in Afghanistan. Nobody has disputed this, either.
Do the math. 2.5 weeks ago, the documents were released. There are 70k+ documents to go through. How long until the Taliban begins punishing people? Well, I guess that depends on how many people they've got reading these reports, and whether they're going to go for an "all at once" reprisal, or just randomly start whacking people as the names are discovered.
What do YOU think the method of "punishing" informants will be, from an organization where, to quote the Taliban entry on Wikipedia:
Punishment was severe. Theft was punished by the amputation of a hand, rape and murder by public execution, and married adulterers were stoned to death. In Kabul, punishments including executions were carried out in front of crowds in the city's former soccer stadium. Rules were issued by the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Suppression of Vice (PVSV) and enforced by its "religious police", importing that Wahhabi concept.
You're right - in this circumstance, a warrant should be issued before any search, and/or the entire process needs to be subjected to judicial review.
There are exigent circumstances where a warrant is not needed before police may enter and search a location - it usually involves cases where they believe that evidence may be destroyed if they don't act, someone is in immediate physical danger, or the suspect poses a flight risk and may escape if they do not enter that location. I could imagine some scenario where law enforcement would be able to justify seizing these records without a warrant if they believed the subject of the search to be a flight risk, or an immediate threat to national security;
However, the "no judicial review" part is monstrous, and should never have been allowed. In many (most? all?) cases where "exigent circumstances" are used to justify a warrantless search, there is still judicial oversight after the fact, where a warrant must be justified & issued to cover the search, and if the police fail to do that, the evidence they gathered during that search may be declared inadmissible as evidence in any legal action. In other words, the threat of totally botching their investigation and letting the suspect go free on a technicality keeps the police from declaring "exigent circumstances" whenever they feel like it.
I think that, despite the doom & gloom you see evidenced here, as a country we are fairly respectful of free speech, in general. There are specific instances (such as this NSL gag order) where there is obvious and vicious potential for abuse. But people aren't generally being thrown in jail for criticizing the government and speaking freely. Look at the fire George Bush drew when he was president - that right there should show you that free speech is, generally, alive and well in the US. Look at the fire Barack Obama has drawn now that he's president - same thing. There are cases where some government policies abuse free speech, but as we see in this case, too - the system has self-corrected, at least to a degree.
I think it's natural that government agencies will attempt to abuse their powers - or at least, I *expect* that they will, being somewhat cynical. But I'm also glad to see that the system has partially corrected and that internal reviews are highlighting and restricting the use of these sorts of policies. That's the goal of the checks and balances, and I think that the real story here is that, by and large, they are working as designed. I expect new challenges will probably come as a result of this case, as well, and I think that's a good thing. As much as I think the ACLU goes a little overboard at times, on the whole, I'm glad they're there representing people in cases like this and focusing attention on these issues.
The reason for this is that your freedom of speech is not unlimited, and does not necessarily include with it the right to interfere with others' rights - their freedom of speech, and freedom to assemble are just as valuable under the law as your freedom to protest and speak your mind.
While I'd agree that the implementation of "free speech zones" can be a bit ridiculous, and probably not always compliant with the notion of "free speech,", it is important to recognize that "freedom of speech" does not give you unlimited rights to say whatever you want, wherever you want, in whatever manner you want, whenever you want. In the interests of public safety, and in the interests of preserving the rights of people to peaceably assemble (another right guaranteed by the First Amendment), these tradeoffs sometimes have to be made.
I think part of the issue with FSZ's has to do with the generally ineffective tone of modern protests. For instance, From the G20 convention in Toronto this past June: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fhGneV6rQg
This "protest" appears mostly to have devolved into a few college students chanting nonsensical but "funny" slogans at the police. Did they have a point? Who knows. Why are they there? Who knows. The kid practically giving a lap-dance to the officer no doubt is a facebook hero, but what the fuck is the point of this protest? I see no signs... I hear no discussion or criticism of G20 policies... I see a few kids making buffoons of themselves because "THE MAN" is out on the street to control a protest.
I've seen this sort of tone in other "protests," as well. People show up to "show their support" for something, and it devolves into a street carnival. I'm all for making a statement publicly against policies you feel are wrong-headed... but I don't think that the event organizers should be forced to deal with this sort of sophomoric nonsense either.
Other than kill a few *more* afghan civilians via the time-honored method of Taliban executions, of course.
To which you responded:
The even more time honoured method is, of course as the diaries confirmed, to just open fire on a bus or someone who looks shifty.
The discussion was about civilian deaths, you retort with "Oh yeah well some kids got injured!"
So I'd say that up until the point you decided to completely change the focus, the discussion was deaths, not injuries.
And if you really mean to suggest that losing an arm, losing a leg, being blinded or rendered deaf or any of the other interesting and horrible permanent injuries are irrelevant or no big deal then well, we have precious little common ground for rational discussion, don't we?
Once again with the strawmen? How unfortunate. I'm not going to dignify this by addressing it - you can actually go back and read what I've wrote so far to see that none of that is what I've said or claimed to believe.
4.0.1 is far from perfect - how about addressing a few of the following bugs before worrying about jailbreakers:
So... rather than fix the remote root exploit that exists on every iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch in the wild, you would rather have them:
1) Fix some bluetooth functions; 2) Fix an "occasional battery issue"; 3) Fix performance on a single old model of the hardware; 4) Address a few complaints about radio performance;
Yes, clearly, your priorities are straight. Don't fix the remote code execution exploit that is already in the wild and affects *every* iOS device. Fix these other things that affect a few of your friends, or a single model of iOS device.
No, I'm not doing anything "wrong". The speed limit is just that - a LIMIT. Not a minimum. There are actually roads around New England where I've seen posted minimum speeds, these are usually 20 mph *below* the speed "limit", and you may be ticketed for driving slower than that. In other words, the signs tell you, "you should be driving between 45-65 mph on this road."
If I choose to do the speed limit - 65 (and I do it in the right / slow lane, as well, in deference to the asshole drivers who think 65 is the bare minimum and 85 is preferable), how is that "wrong" in any fashion? Because I am driving a bit slower than the people who are breaking the speed limit? I'd say they're in the wrong for speeding. And if they are driving so fast that they can't safely identify that I'm moving slower than them, and then maneuver around me without hitting me or having to execute an unsafe maneuver, then they are driving too fast, and shouldn't be taking that risk with their vehicle and their safety, or mine.
I'd say the difference is semantic, but okay, in the interests of clarity, "less reaction distance" when something unexpected happens.
Either term is suitable, honestly - speed = distance / time, so regardless of the speed you're traveling, at a given speed, you either have a shorter time in which to react before covering a given distance, or you need a longer distance in which to react given a static reaction time.
When you are driving, it is ALWAYS the drivers' responsibility to drive only as fast as the road conditions allow.
If somebody is on the highway driving 20mph, and I am driving 60mph, and that turns out to be too fast to respond safely to finding someone driving 20mph in front of me, then I am driving too fast.
It is not the responsibility of other people to get out of my way, it is not the responsibility of other people to drive "as fast as I want to drive". If they are driving slow, it is MY speed that causes the danger, and it is my inability to react & safely move around them that causes the crash. The speed is the danger. Unexpected differentials can heighten the danger, but the crash is my fault for driving at a speed that is unsafe for the road conditions.
The entire point of this discussion has been the "civilian deaths" that have been caused by the NATO militaries there.
If you really mean to suggest that a bullet wound that someone survives is somehow the exact same thing as a bullet wound you don't recover from, well, we have precious little common ground for rational discussion, don't we?
I can't disagree, there needs to be an element of realism to the speed limit. You don't put signs up on your 4-lane highway indicating the speed limit is 35 miles per hour anymore than you put a sign up on your residential road with hairpin turns indicating the speed limit is 90 miles per hour.
However, in a collision on a road with a clearly posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour, a collision between somebody doing 60 mph and somebody doing 90 mph, the increased danger comes from people *exceeding* the speed limit because they have unilaterally decided that the speed limit is too slow. The solution there is more, and more aggressive, enforcement of the speed limit.
True, I'd expect it would work as well as a pin code, I think the randomized layout thing in either case handily prevents the "smudge" attack being discussed.
For Pin entry, something I've seen done for touchscreens is that the pin keyboard (whatever alphanumerics are allowed) has a randomized layout.
Similar to what you describe, the position and pattern followed by typing out your pin on the randomly-placed keys will rarely be "the same", making it much harder to deduce the pin based on fingerprint positioning.
Ah, I see you believe the urban legend that speed in and of itself is dangerous. Speed in itself is no more dangerous than a fork is on it's own.
You are wrong. "A car" in itself is no more dangerous than a fork on its own.
The "danger" of speed increases in proportion to the increase in speed. How, you say? 1) Less reaction time when something unexpected happens - blow a tire, new pothole, sudden curve, animal in the road, child in the road, broken down car in the road... 2) F=ma. When your car, traveling at a given velocity, suddenly and rapid decelerates due to impacting something, that Force is transmitted into you, the fame of your car, and the object you've hit. The higher your speed (velocity), the higher your deceleration (negative acceleration) when you come to a stop due to slamming into something. Therefore, the force involved in the crash is directly proportional to the speed at which you strike an object. More speed = more force, given the same car. 3) Increased braking distance - meaning the time it takes you to *safely* stop and not kill yourself or someone else is greater the faster you are going.
Speed, in and of itself, is dangerous. There are conditions where "60m/h" is a generally safe speed. There are conditions were "20m/h" is generally a safe speed. But no matter how you look at that, the higher speed is "more dangerous" in a given circumstance than the lower speed.
Let's not take eternity, let's take the last year. Not a single speeding incident, not even 1 km/h too much for one second?
Nope, not for me. Not even in the last 4 years. I've found that turning on some music, and setting the cruise control a mile or so below the speed limit is a wonderfully relaxing way to drive - no worries about speed traps, plenty of time to react to the traffic you're approaching, and - bonus - better gas mileage generally.
Yes, I've even been ticketed for speeding! I have violated the law in the past by ignoring posted speed limits, rolling through stop signs, and one time I was distracted and got bagged for cutting through an intersection when the light was turning red. I've paid my fines, and I readily admit that I have broken rules.
That does NOT make it "okay" or "not breaking the rules." Just as your assessment that the rules are unreasonable, and therefore may be broken, does not mean that you are not breaking the rules. Unless you are omniscient, or are the guy responsible for putting up and taking down those signs, you have NO clue why they might be up.
I've actually learned from my youthful indiscretions in the car, as well - now I obey speed limits, and am a much more cautious driver. A close call where I was speeding and barely had room & time to brake before hitting a guy on a motorcycle taught me that. Scared the shit out of him, scared the shit out of me - I'm not proud of it, but I have learned the wisdom of obeying the posted rules on the road.
Since one good turn deserves another, I think what you meant to say is:
"Speeding in a residential area is unacceptable. Well, unless I decide that the sign is silly and probably not valid based on some things that happened a year ago around the same time, and besides I'm a super-careful driver, so the signs don't really apply to me, I can see everything and am never surprised by anything on the road, ever."
That's a nice straw man you've got there, how much does it weigh?
As awful as injuries to children are (did you really just ask us to think of the children, too?), injured children are out of scope in a discussion of civilian DEATHS.
I'm sure you can figure out why on your own, sport. (hint: injuries heal. Know anybody who has recovered from death?)
Slashdot Mirror
Let's hope he learned from it.
I have no particular gripe with this information being leaked to the public. I do have a gripe with Wikileaks rushing to publish it and putting people at risk by including names and everything else.
Fact: There are names of informants in these documents. Nobody, not even wikileaks, has disputed this.
Fact: The Taliban has stated to the media that they are "reviewing" these documents, and intend to "punish" people found to be cooperating with the NATO militaries in Afghanistan. Nobody has disputed this, either.
Do the math. 2.5 weeks ago, the documents were released. There are 70k+ documents to go through. How long until the Taliban begins punishing people? Well, I guess that depends on how many people they've got reading these reports, and whether they're going to go for an "all at once" reprisal, or just randomly start whacking people as the names are discovered.
What do YOU think the method of "punishing" informants will be, from an organization where, to quote the Taliban entry on Wikipedia:
You're right - in this circumstance, a warrant should be issued before any search, and/or the entire process needs to be subjected to judicial review.
There are exigent circumstances where a warrant is not needed before police may enter and search a location - it usually involves cases where they believe that evidence may be destroyed if they don't act, someone is in immediate physical danger, or the suspect poses a flight risk and may escape if they do not enter that location. I could imagine some scenario where law enforcement would be able to justify seizing these records without a warrant if they believed the subject of the search to be a flight risk, or an immediate threat to national security;
However, the "no judicial review" part is monstrous, and should never have been allowed. In many (most? all?) cases where "exigent circumstances" are used to justify a warrantless search, there is still judicial oversight after the fact, where a warrant must be justified & issued to cover the search, and if the police fail to do that, the evidence they gathered during that search may be declared inadmissible as evidence in any legal action. In other words, the threat of totally botching their investigation and letting the suspect go free on a technicality keeps the police from declaring "exigent circumstances" whenever they feel like it.
I think that, despite the doom & gloom you see evidenced here, as a country we are fairly respectful of free speech, in general. There are specific instances (such as this NSL gag order) where there is obvious and vicious potential for abuse. But people aren't generally being thrown in jail for criticizing the government and speaking freely. Look at the fire George Bush drew when he was president - that right there should show you that free speech is, generally, alive and well in the US. Look at the fire Barack Obama has drawn now that he's president - same thing. There are cases where some government policies abuse free speech, but as we see in this case, too - the system has self-corrected, at least to a degree.
I think it's natural that government agencies will attempt to abuse their powers - or at least, I *expect* that they will, being somewhat cynical. But I'm also glad to see that the system has partially corrected and that internal reviews are highlighting and restricting the use of these sorts of policies. That's the goal of the checks and balances, and I think that the real story here is that, by and large, they are working as designed. I expect new challenges will probably come as a result of this case, as well, and I think that's a good thing. As much as I think the ACLU goes a little overboard at times, on the whole, I'm glad they're there representing people in cases like this and focusing attention on these issues.
The reason for this is that your freedom of speech is not unlimited, and does not necessarily include with it the right to interfere with others' rights - their freedom of speech, and freedom to assemble are just as valuable under the law as your freedom to protest and speak your mind.
While I'd agree that the implementation of "free speech zones" can be a bit ridiculous, and probably not always compliant with the notion of "free speech,", it is important to recognize that "freedom of speech" does not give you unlimited rights to say whatever you want, wherever you want, in whatever manner you want, whenever you want. In the interests of public safety, and in the interests of preserving the rights of people to peaceably assemble (another right guaranteed by the First Amendment), these tradeoffs sometimes have to be made.
I think part of the issue with FSZ's has to do with the generally ineffective tone of modern protests. For instance, From the G20 convention in Toronto this past June:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fhGneV6rQg
This "protest" appears mostly to have devolved into a few college students chanting nonsensical but "funny" slogans at the police. Did they have a point? Who knows. Why are they there? Who knows. The kid practically giving a lap-dance to the officer no doubt is a facebook hero, but what the fuck is the point of this protest? I see no signs... I hear no discussion or criticism of G20 policies... I see a few kids making buffoons of themselves because "THE MAN" is out on the street to control a protest.
I've seen this sort of tone in other "protests," as well. People show up to "show their support" for something, and it devolves into a street carnival. I'm all for making a statement publicly against policies you feel are wrong-headed... but I don't think that the event organizers should be forced to deal with this sort of sophomoric nonsense either.
Let me quote my own post which you replied to:
To which you responded:
The discussion was about civilian deaths, you retort with "Oh yeah well some kids got injured!"
So I'd say that up until the point you decided to completely change the focus, the discussion was deaths, not injuries.
Once again with the strawmen? How unfortunate. I'm not going to dignify this by addressing it - you can actually go back and read what I've wrote so far to see that none of that is what I've said or claimed to believe.
So... rather than fix the remote root exploit that exists on every iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch in the wild, you would rather have them:
1) Fix some bluetooth functions;
2) Fix an "occasional battery issue";
3) Fix performance on a single old model of the hardware;
4) Address a few complaints about radio performance;
Yes, clearly, your priorities are straight. Don't fix the remote code execution exploit that is already in the wild and affects *every* iOS device. Fix these other things that affect a few of your friends, or a single model of iOS device.
Yeah, because a $200-300 new phone is much cheaper than a couple blank CD's, with which you can easily bypass all that nasty copy protection.
Sure it just works. It just doesn't "work well". It's slow.
No, I'm not doing anything "wrong". The speed limit is just that - a LIMIT. Not a minimum. There are actually roads around New England where I've seen posted minimum speeds, these are usually 20 mph *below* the speed "limit", and you may be ticketed for driving slower than that. In other words, the signs tell you, "you should be driving between 45-65 mph on this road."
If I choose to do the speed limit - 65 (and I do it in the right / slow lane, as well, in deference to the asshole drivers who think 65 is the bare minimum and 85 is preferable), how is that "wrong" in any fashion? Because I am driving a bit slower than the people who are breaking the speed limit? I'd say they're in the wrong for speeding. And if they are driving so fast that they can't safely identify that I'm moving slower than them, and then maneuver around me without hitting me or having to execute an unsafe maneuver, then they are driving too fast, and shouldn't be taking that risk with their vehicle and their safety, or mine.
I'd say the difference is semantic, but okay, in the interests of clarity, "less reaction distance" when something unexpected happens.
Either term is suitable, honestly - speed = distance / time, so regardless of the speed you're traveling, at a given speed, you either have a shorter time in which to react before covering a given distance, or you need a longer distance in which to react given a static reaction time.
When you are driving, it is ALWAYS the drivers' responsibility to drive only as fast as the road conditions allow.
If somebody is on the highway driving 20mph, and I am driving 60mph, and that turns out to be too fast to respond safely to finding someone driving 20mph in front of me, then I am driving too fast.
It is not the responsibility of other people to get out of my way, it is not the responsibility of other people to drive "as fast as I want to drive". If they are driving slow, it is MY speed that causes the danger, and it is my inability to react & safely move around them that causes the crash. The speed is the danger. Unexpected differentials can heighten the danger, but the crash is my fault for driving at a speed that is unsafe for the road conditions.
The entire point of this discussion has been the "civilian deaths" that have been caused by the NATO militaries there.
If you really mean to suggest that a bullet wound that someone survives is somehow the exact same thing as a bullet wound you don't recover from, well, we have precious little common ground for rational discussion, don't we?
I can't disagree, there needs to be an element of realism to the speed limit. You don't put signs up on your 4-lane highway indicating the speed limit is 35 miles per hour anymore than you put a sign up on your residential road with hairpin turns indicating the speed limit is 90 miles per hour.
However, in a collision on a road with a clearly posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour, a collision between somebody doing 60 mph and somebody doing 90 mph, the increased danger comes from people *exceeding* the speed limit because they have unilaterally decided that the speed limit is too slow. The solution there is more, and more aggressive, enforcement of the speed limit.
m=miles; mph or m/h is common enough notation in the states, even if it's ambiguous to those using the metric system.
Not everybody uses the metric system, unfortunately.
Irrelevant to this discussion of civilian deaths , chief.
True, I'd expect it would work as well as a pin code, I think the randomized layout thing in either case handily prevents the "smudge" attack being discussed.
For Pin entry, something I've seen done for touchscreens is that the pin keyboard (whatever alphanumerics are allowed) has a randomized layout.
Similar to what you describe, the position and pattern followed by typing out your pin on the randomly-placed keys will rarely be "the same", making it much harder to deduce the pin based on fingerprint positioning.
You didn't bother to read the actual post, did you?
You are wrong. "A car" in itself is no more dangerous than a fork on its own.
The "danger" of speed increases in proportion to the increase in speed. How, you say?
1) Less reaction time when something unexpected happens - blow a tire, new pothole, sudden curve, animal in the road, child in the road, broken down car in the road...
2) F=ma. When your car, traveling at a given velocity, suddenly and rapid decelerates due to impacting something, that Force is transmitted into you, the fame of your car, and the object you've hit. The higher your speed (velocity), the higher your deceleration (negative acceleration) when you come to a stop due to slamming into something. Therefore, the force involved in the crash is directly proportional to the speed at which you strike an object. More speed = more force, given the same car.
3) Increased braking distance - meaning the time it takes you to *safely* stop and not kill yourself or someone else is greater the faster you are going.
Speed, in and of itself, is dangerous. There are conditions where "60m/h" is a generally safe speed. There are conditions were "20m/h" is generally a safe speed. But no matter how you look at that, the higher speed is "more dangerous" in a given circumstance than the lower speed.
Nope, not for me. Not even in the last 4 years. I've found that turning on some music, and setting the cruise control a mile or so below the speed limit is a wonderfully relaxing way to drive - no worries about speed traps, plenty of time to react to the traffic you're approaching, and - bonus - better gas mileage generally.
Yes, I've even been ticketed for speeding! I have violated the law in the past by ignoring posted speed limits, rolling through stop signs, and one time I was distracted and got bagged for cutting through an intersection when the light was turning red. I've paid my fines, and I readily admit that I have broken rules.
That does NOT make it "okay" or "not breaking the rules." Just as your assessment that the rules are unreasonable, and therefore may be broken, does not mean that you are not breaking the rules. Unless you are omniscient, or are the guy responsible for putting up and taking down those signs, you have NO clue why they might be up.
I've actually learned from my youthful indiscretions in the car, as well - now I obey speed limits, and am a much more cautious driver. A close call where I was speeding and barely had room & time to brake before hitting a guy on a motorcycle taught me that. Scared the shit out of him, scared the shit out of me - I'm not proud of it, but I have learned the wisdom of obeying the posted rules on the road.
Since one good turn deserves another, I think what you meant to say is:
"Speeding in a residential area is unacceptable. Well, unless I decide that the sign is silly and probably not valid based on some things that happened a year ago around the same time, and besides I'm a super-careful driver, so the signs don't really apply to me, I can see everything and am never surprised by anything on the road, ever."
There. I fixed that for you!
That's a nice straw man you've got there, how much does it weigh?
As awful as injuries to children are (did you really just ask us to think of the children, too?), injured children are out of scope in a discussion of civilian DEATHS.
I'm sure you can figure out why on your own, sport. (hint: injuries heal. Know anybody who has recovered from death?)
How many children died in that bus full of children?
Whoops, zero. Thought we were talking about civilian deaths, tiger?