So the solution is to convince people that pro-filtering is even more anti-child.
How so? Like how the filter wastes money that could be better spent on law enforcement? Or how the filter encourages a false sense of security in parents and guardians, while having little if any real effect? Or that the filter encourages deviants to go further underground, making it harder for law enforcement to detect, track and pursue them? Or maybe the way the filter distracts from much more important and much more real problems of general internet safety? Or perhaps that the filter is based on a secret blacklist that could be easily co-opted to restrict political and civil rights ideas that our children might have an interest in?
You mean like that? Yeah, our "dirty tactics" don't even need to be lies. Shame about the other side.
You're assuming that both the students and the teachers have the competence, knowledge and understanding of the science in order to properly evaluate it, and that the teachers guiding such student evaluation do so in an honest and unbiased fashion.
We (Americans) live in a society where graphic violence is pretty much OK, but show breasts, a penis, or even (OMG!) sex between consenting adults and everyone gets their panties in a wad.
Careful with that pronoun, you might erroneously imply that the "it" of the second line and the "normal" of the first line are actually the same thing.
No matter how much Conroy and his cronies like to suggest that the filter will only block illegal content, with child porn usually specifically (emotively) mentioned, and no matter how much they try to paint supporters of free speech as supporters of child porn, these are all patent lies. The proposed filter implements the ACMA blacklist, which was originally intended to be safe for *children*, and which blocks not illegal material, but "prohibited" material (or "potentially prohibited" material, as in "I couldn't be bothered sending it for proper rating, here's my guess"), which can include perfectly legal adult material (stuff you can buy in newsagents, ferchristssake), and in some cases even MA15+-rated material.
ACMA would've ruled prohibited content here because someone at ACMA figured the images would probably (probably!) been rated unsuitable for children (if they'd actually rated them through the classification board).
But what shits me the most about this whole mess Conroy's seemingly unending list of lies.
I suspect we differ on the definition of "intercept". If you strictly mean "capture and extract information from", then I agree. Any measurement (the "extract information" part) will collapse the wavefunction, destroying the quantum coherences and ultimately (with approaching-unity probability) being detected by the QKD scheme. However, I was using the term in the more general sense of "have some device between", in which case what I said is entirely correct. Here's why:
Sure it's possible to intercept the quantum signal, but it is not possible to regenerate it precisely - by which I mean reproducing the original quantum state. Read up on the "no-clone theorem" - for example Wikipedia's article.
I'm well versed in the no-cloning theorem. As such, I know why it doesn't apply here. The no-cloning theorem is in relation to making an identical and independent copy of any (a general) quantum system whilst retaining the original system. In this context it would amount to producing a duplicate signal, independent but equal to the original signal. This is not possible under the no-cloning theorem. (I'll preempt a point here, too: Entanglement is not cloning, although it can sometimes look similar.)
But, intercepting and regenerating the signal does not necessarily involve ever having both the original and regenerated signals existing at the same time. Take an example of a kind of quantum repeater, a device that converts a photon signal into some other quantum state, say electron spin, and then converts that spin into a new photon signal. It's roughly the same idea as classical repeaters in long-distance fibre-optic communications. Now, I consider this operation to be an interception of the signal and generation of a new signal with the same information. It's a coherent process; all the quantum information in the original signal remains intact. But you can't get back the photons from the original signal, so the no-cloning theorem is not relevant. (A more detailed explanation of the workings of a quantum repeater could include entanglement, which also means no-cloning theorem is not relevent.)
A restriction on the device is that, to function, it cannot collapse the wavefunction. That means that (at a minimum) it cannot make a projective measurement of the quantum state. Thus, it cannot make any recorded measurement on the state, because that would require making a projective measurement, which would require defining a projection basis (randomly(!), because there's no better way), which would collapse the wavefunction, which would rightly end up being detected by the QKD scheme as eavesdropping.
So, you can have a device which intercepts and regenerates the signal, you just can't ask it any questions.
And you can't intercept and regenerate the signal because the laws of quantum physics make it impossible to measure enough information about the beam to generate a copy of it.
What you say is mostly true, but slightly misleading. Google "quantum repeater". Basically, it is possible to intercept and regenerate the signal precisely, but in doing so you cannot know what that signal actually was.
[snip] and if you have access to both the quantum channel and the non-quantum channel, I guess you could pull off a man-in-the-middle attack.
A man-in-the-middle attack of this sort would basically be Eve "in between" Alice and Bob, where Alice has a quantum-encrypted channel to Eve, Eve has a separate independent quantum-encrypted channel to Bob, and Eve just forwards all the bits between Alice and Bob. Which, in the end, boils down to the fact that you still have to verify who you're really talking to at the other end of the protocol, just like any other cryptography scheme.
The question then becomes, do they even check the answers?
I just imagine a scenario where the govt tries to deport a suspect because they lied on the form, only to realise the suspect had actually ticked all the right boxes.
Amusing as your comment is, it raises one of the disturbing points about what's being proposed by the government here. The blacklist which targets prohibited (not necessarily illegal) sites is maintained in a manner that is completely opaque. The blacklist is secret (that is, until it inevitably leaks), and sites are added to it when some puritan shitstain makes a complaint and a bureaucrat (not from the classification board) decides that a site is "potentially prohibited". No oversight. No appeals.
The only reason we know that that abortion website was put on the blacklist is because the person who made the complaint (as a test of the system) was nice enough to share the response to his complaint, confirming the addition to the blacklist, with the rest of the world. (Some in the opposition are describing this as a loophole of the system. I'm undecided if I like where they're going with that, or not.)
The government won't let you know what's on that "master list". It won't tell you why a site has been blocked. You're left to assume that mummy gov. knows what's best for you. The condescension is appalling, let alone the vast open space for political abuse.
Of course, before the last election, this was going to be entirely an opt-in filter. Not that that idea in itself doesn't have problems, but it was only after they came into power did the lying scumbags turn it into the two-tiered mandatory/opt-out undemocratic abomination that's in the works today.
Slashdot Mirror
It's spelt "quiche".
----
Don't "Whoosh" me; I know what I'm doing.
How so? Like how the filter wastes money that could be better spent on law enforcement? Or how the filter encourages a false sense of security in parents and guardians, while having little if any real effect? Or that the filter encourages deviants to go further underground, making it harder for law enforcement to detect, track and pursue them? Or maybe the way the filter distracts from much more important and much more real problems of general internet safety? Or perhaps that the filter is based on a secret blacklist that could be easily co-opted to restrict political and civil rights ideas that our children might have an interest in?
You mean like that? Yeah, our "dirty tactics" don't even need to be lies. Shame about the other side.
You're assuming that both the students and the teachers have the competence, knowledge and understanding of the science in order to properly evaluate it, and that the teachers guiding such student evaluation do so in an honest and unbiased fashion.
Good luck with that.
"Lobster" is a gross exaggeration. Everything else is depressingly close to the truth.
Some more figuratively than others.
Careful with that pronoun, you might erroneously imply that the "it" of the second line and the "normal" of the first line are actually the same thing.
As a foreigner, I find your equation of the Democrats and "liberal" cute. :-)
I first read that as "insidious". My /. brainwashing is coming along nicely. :)
Why would disk IO be pegging the CPU at full core capacity? What, is it in PIO mode or something?
No, the term you're after is "classical physics".
As someone who has a hobby interest in creating images, what other free option do I have?
I'm holing out hope for Krita, but that even has some stubborn stupidities that need sorting out (like Qt dropping old tablet events).
Insert certain Jurassic Park quote here. ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunt_Car_Racer
That was (notwithstanding your comment) a fun game.
No matter how much Conroy and his cronies like to suggest that the filter will only block illegal content, with child porn usually specifically (emotively) mentioned, and no matter how much they try to paint supporters of free speech as supporters of child porn, these are all patent lies. The proposed filter implements the ACMA blacklist, which was originally intended to be safe for *children*, and which blocks not illegal material, but "prohibited" material (or "potentially prohibited" material, as in "I couldn't be bothered sending it for proper rating, here's my guess"), which can include perfectly legal adult material (stuff you can buy in newsagents, ferchristssake), and in some cases even MA15+-rated material.
ACMA would've ruled prohibited content here because someone at ACMA figured the images would probably (probably!) been rated unsuitable for children (if they'd actually rated them through the classification board).
But what shits me the most about this whole mess Conroy's seemingly unending list of lies.
Paranoia is healthy when they really are out to get you.
Yeah, but think how fast you'll be going when you get there!
I suspect we differ on the definition of "intercept". If you strictly mean "capture and extract information from", then I agree. Any measurement (the "extract information" part) will collapse the wavefunction, destroying the quantum coherences and ultimately (with approaching-unity probability) being detected by the QKD scheme. However, I was using the term in the more general sense of "have some device between", in which case what I said is entirely correct. Here's why:
I'm well versed in the no-cloning theorem. As such, I know why it doesn't apply here. The no-cloning theorem is in relation to making an identical and independent copy of any (a general) quantum system whilst retaining the original system. In this context it would amount to producing a duplicate signal, independent but equal to the original signal. This is not possible under the no-cloning theorem. (I'll preempt a point here, too: Entanglement is not cloning, although it can sometimes look similar.)
But, intercepting and regenerating the signal does not necessarily involve ever having both the original and regenerated signals existing at the same time. Take an example of a kind of quantum repeater, a device that converts a photon signal into some other quantum state, say electron spin, and then converts that spin into a new photon signal. It's roughly the same idea as classical repeaters in long-distance fibre-optic communications. Now, I consider this operation to be an interception of the signal and generation of a new signal with the same information. It's a coherent process; all the quantum information in the original signal remains intact. But you can't get back the photons from the original signal, so the no-cloning theorem is not relevant. (A more detailed explanation of the workings of a quantum repeater could include entanglement, which also means no-cloning theorem is not relevent.)
A restriction on the device is that, to function, it cannot collapse the wavefunction. That means that (at a minimum) it cannot make a projective measurement of the quantum state. Thus, it cannot make any recorded measurement on the state, because that would require making a projective measurement, which would require defining a projection basis (randomly(!), because there's no better way), which would collapse the wavefunction, which would rightly end up being detected by the QKD scheme as eavesdropping.
So, you can have a device which intercepts and regenerates the signal, you just can't ask it any questions.
What you say is mostly true, but slightly misleading. Google "quantum repeater". Basically, it is possible to intercept and regenerate the signal precisely, but in doing so you cannot know what that signal actually was.
A man-in-the-middle attack of this sort would basically be Eve "in between" Alice and Bob, where Alice has a quantum-encrypted channel to Eve, Eve has a separate independent quantum-encrypted channel to Bob, and Eve just forwards all the bits between Alice and Bob. Which, in the end, boils down to the fact that you still have to verify who you're really talking to at the other end of the protocol, just like any other cryptography scheme.
The question then becomes, do they even check the answers?
I just imagine a scenario where the govt tries to deport a suspect because they lied on the form, only to realise the suspect had actually ticked all the right boxes.
One who's into smurfs?
50 ALSO, FUCK YOU. :-)
Sheesh, meme's been alive a couple of days and it's already evolving.
Amusing as your comment is, it raises one of the disturbing points about what's being proposed by the government here. The blacklist which targets prohibited (not necessarily illegal) sites is maintained in a manner that is completely opaque. The blacklist is secret (that is, until it inevitably leaks), and sites are added to it when some puritan shitstain makes a complaint and a bureaucrat (not from the classification board) decides that a site is "potentially prohibited". No oversight. No appeals.
The only reason we know that that abortion website was put on the blacklist is because the person who made the complaint (as a test of the system) was nice enough to share the response to his complaint, confirming the addition to the blacklist, with the rest of the world. (Some in the opposition are describing this as a loophole of the system. I'm undecided if I like where they're going with that, or not.)
The government won't let you know what's on that "master list". It won't tell you why a site has been blocked. You're left to assume that mummy gov. knows what's best for you. The condescension is appalling, let alone the vast open space for political abuse.
Of course, before the last election, this was going to be entirely an opt-in filter. Not that that idea in itself doesn't have problems, but it was only after they came into power did the lying scumbags turn it into the two-tiered mandatory/opt-out undemocratic abomination that's in the works today.
More likely go 'What the fuck? How dare TomTom steal Microsoft's technology! They can't do that!'
Surely you mean "go rent it" or perhaps "buy it from your local store".