And if only we could then take that paper-based system, and modernize it using affordable electronic systems, like we have with everything else we do...
I disagree about the client end of AMEX. I use mine over my VISA or MasterCard because I find American Express treats me much better. They are more expensive for the merchant, but the way I see it it's a marketing cost: the merchant is paying for the AMEX customers, who use their card because they like the nice treatment.
Anywhere but the US, you just sign in to your internet banking account, key in his branch ID and account number, and away the money floats, on a surge of digital freedom! In the US however, try this approach, and your rent just become $355.
In Australia we adapted something very similar to ACH for inter-bank transfers. It was originally conceived for inter-bank settlement clearing, but the way the format was developed meant it was trivial to adapt it for consumer payments. Most banks offer inter-bank transfers via Direct Entry (the commonly used name for the system) at no (or sub-dollar) cost. Wire transfers are not generally used for domestic transactions; Swift is generally used for international transfers only.
Yes, v2 only. Then again, if you're relying on v1 for security, you're doing it wrong.
RekeyLimit
Specifies the maximum amount of data that may be transmitted before the session key is renegotiated. The argument is the number of bytes, with an optional suffix of 'K', 'M', or 'G' to indicate Kilobytes, Megabytes, or Gigabytes, respectively. The default is between '1G' and '4G', depending on the cipher. This option applies to protocol version 2 only.
4G is a LOT of data to have compromised. Thus, sign out (or change your rekey limit, if your client supports it).
Actually, even if I set it to 1% of the lowest default, it would take a great deal of terminal traffic to force a renegotiation. Given the additional attack vector you introduce to the server (just compromise the always-connected client), and the fact that you're telling everyone between your client and the server about this vector with your traffic... You have a great point, but my advice stands. Sign out.
People often elevate privileges during terminal sessions. Leaving a screen session running with a shell su'd makes for a privilege-escalation attack a savvy 8-year-old could manage.
To further reinforce this point, in additional to longer compromise windows, you have larger quantities of data encrypted under the one session key. A primary component of encryption is key rotation, and the longer you leave your session open, the more historical data available to be compromised through the breaking of a single key. On the off-chance your opponent potentially has access to massive computing power (otherwise, why would you even be worried in the first place?), you're better to be rotating your session key regularly: thus, sign out.
That was my point. "... the shield law treated those procedures as punishment in itself and prevented the suit from even making it as far as the 'defendent/rescuer' having to respond..."
The article is pretty clear. It is saying that:
a) There is a problem that you can currently witness a crime, not report it, and you've done nothing wrnog (unless it's a violent crime against someone under 14).
b) There is a new law which fixes this problem.
You may think it's morally reprehensible to witness a crime and not report it, and I agree. But it is not a crime under the law (according to the article), but once the bill is signed in to law, it will be (for violent crimes, anyway).
My common knowledge shouldn't be at issue; firstly, everything I've said has been in relation to TFA. Secondly, I live in a different legal system with a completely different basis. I shouldn't be expected to know what is and isn't a crime in the US, except through common sense. And I said pretty clearly that I thought this law was codifying something which should be common sense anyway ("... being a bystander to rape is currently NOT a crime. It obviously "should be", thus the new law." -- Me, just a few posts ago).
I understand your reaction ("wtf, it's not a crime to witness a rape and not report it??!?") because that was my reaction too, but don't just jump down the throat of someone who's busy agreeing with you.
In my other comment (look up slightly) I discover this is wrong, and they are protected under law; some years ago they weren't, but it was changed (search for "Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld)"). Unfortunately, it seems like there's at least two paramedics who don't KNOW it changed, but now I can tell them. Maybe/. discussion just saved some lives?
I didn't say you said I advocated them. I said you set them up as strawmen to attack my argument, which is a logical fallacy. Reading comprehension really is wonderful.
Look up Godwin's Law. I don't think you have a clue what I'm talking about. No, wait: I'll do it for you. "Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." It has nothing to do with being against freedom.
Also, totalitarianism is not about a lack of freedom: it's about a TOTAL removal of freedoms (the clue is in the name). Every nation in the world today takes SOME freedoms away from its citizens.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said I was opposed to freedom. I'm just calling you out on being a fundie.
You said that governments shouldn't force people to do anything other than taxes, and I'm saying that modern civilization disagrees with you. Governments today force you to do things like send your kids to school, spend time in prison if you break a whole range of laws unrelated to tax, attend a court hearing if you're accused of a crime, respect property boundaries... The list goes on. Governments should force people to do things beyond just paying taxes, and most of the civilized world agrees.
My only reference so far is "it's a part of the official Qld first aid syllabus", based on the fact that my first aid instructor told me so.
From QUT's H&S site:
Even with the best intent, sometimes things could go wrong. The common law's position on this is it depends on all the circumstances of the case. Under current law, the fact that a person was acting in an emergency situation is relevant to deciding whether the person has been negligent. The emergency nature of the circumstances and the skills of the good Samaritan are taken into account in determining whether the good Samaritan has acted reasonably.
Most jurisdictions (apart from Queensland and Tasmania) have introduced laws to clarify the position of good Samaritans and to provide them with protection from liability for acts or omissions done or made in good faith. While Queensland does not yet have good Samaritan law to shield good Samaritans from civil liability like most other states, it is worth examining other states’ provisions to understand the key elements that form the protection. Although different from state to state, the essential elements for good Samaritans to be protected from civil liability include:
* The assistance must be given in circumstances of emergency;
* The acts or omissions are done or made in good faith and without reckless disregard for the safety of the person in distress or someone else; and
* The assistance is provided without expectation of payment or other consideration.
However, such protection from liability does not apply if the good Samaritan was significantly impaired by alcohol or other recreational drug.
Which, on the face of it, looks less rosy (in QLD) than I was told, although perhaps things are better in other states. Google "Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld)" for this quote:
Liability at law shall not attach to a medical practitioner, nurse
or other person prescribed under a regulation in respect of an
act done or omitted in the course of rendering medical care,
aid or assistance to an injured person in circumstances of
emergency—
(a) at or near the scene of the incident or other occurrence
constituting the emergency;
(b) while the injured person is being transported from the
scene of the incident or other occurrence constituting
the emergency to a hospital or other place at which
adequate medical care is available;
if—
(c) the act is done or omitted in good faith and without
gross negligence; and
(d) the services are performed without fee or reward or
expectation of fee or reward.
So doctors and nurses ARE protected barring GROSS negligence (contrary to what I'd been told), although nothing yet has specifically contradicted what I was told about Good Samaritan law applying in Qld (I don't count QUT saying it doesn't, as they may just be covering their collective behinds).
AHA! Google "CIVIL LIABILITY (GOOD SAMARITAN) AMENDMENT BILL 2007" and read the PDF. This is Queensland legislation (which I'm interested in personally), but has commentary about the protections in other states.
Clause 4 inserts s 27A into chapter 2, part 1, division 7. This new provision inserts into
the CLA legal protection for persons who assist persons in distress. Subsection (1)
provides that civil liability will not attach to persons in relation to an act done or omitted
to be done in the course of rendering first aid or other aid or assistance to a person in
distress. Subsections s 27(1)(a) and (b) qualify this legal protection by requiring that
such aid or assistance must be provided in circumstances of emergency and that the
act done or omitted must have been in good faith and without reckless disregard for the
safety of the person in distress or someone else.
And there you have it. Good samaritans are protected in Qld. For other states it appears, from references I've read, to be the same, but IANAL and YMMV. Googling this stuff isn't that bad: I got my final definitive reference by googling "good samaritan law queensland" (without the quotes).
The problem is that many law systems have procedures to go through before the 'laughter' phase, but the shield law treated those procedures as punishment in itself and prevented the suit from even making it as far as the 'defendent/rescuer' having to respond to an initial complaint.
I never endorsed murder, rape, theft, or totalitarianism, so you've added strawman to your ad hominem, and I think using 'totalitarianism' (being a concept strongly related, in many people's minds, to Hitler) is enough for me to call Godwin.
I said that there are perfectly valid positions which are acceptable in modern civilized countries which run contrary to your position, which you stated as "Governments aren't supposed to be forcing citizens to do anything beyond paying taxes for the bare necessities".
In fact, most (all?) modern governments 'force' their citizens to do much more than that. I get that you disagree with it, but it doesn't mean you get to question someone else's character for not agreeing with you.
From TFA:
"Witnesses could be charged with a misdemeanor for failing to report violent attacks in California under legislation approved by the state Assembly.... Current law requires witnesses to report violent crimes when the victim is younger than 14. Nava's bill expands the requirement to include victims of all ages."
Thus, reading TFA, it is currently NOT a crime to witness a crime and not report it. I don't know if it's correct, but it's what TFA says. I should point out that, based on the article, it is still LEGAL to witness a non-violent crime and not report it.
Uhm, what do you think governments are for then? Forcing individuals into doing things that should not be done?
Governments aren't supposed to be forcing citizens to do anything beyond paying taxes for the bare necessities (military, roads, emergency services, etc). The fact that you think governments should be forcing people to do things does not speak well of your character.
Actually, it just means you disagree with him. There are all sorts of political philosophies which are perfectly accepted in modern civilized countries which run contrary to your position.
You're kidding, right? I've never heard of this before. PLEASE tell me you're kidding.
I KNOW we don't have such a stupid system in Australia (or at least, didn't), because I once saw a couple of guys beating someone up and called 000 (our 911 equivalent). A loud noise could easily have landed me a beating too.
I'm not so sure this law is 'stupidity'. It only applies to violent crime, and it only requires that the witness report it, not intervene, not even make a scene. Just make a discreet phone call. I'd like to see more debate before labeling this a 'bad' law.
That's not to say the rest of your rant doesn't ring true, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Sarcasm =/= troll. Personal attack == troll, you moron!
OMG l2irony, you all suck. "My point was that the parent argument was simplistic and reversible."
My point was that the parent argument was simplistic and reversible.
And if only we could then take that paper-based system, and modernize it using affordable electronic systems, like we have with everything else we do...
I disagree about the client end of AMEX. I use mine over my VISA or MasterCard because I find American Express treats me much better. They are more expensive for the merchant, but the way I see it it's a marketing cost: the merchant is paying for the AMEX customers, who use their card because they like the nice treatment.
Anywhere but the US, you just sign in to your internet banking account, key in his branch ID and account number, and away the money floats, on a surge of digital freedom! In the US however, try this approach, and your rent just become $355.
Paper records can be easily forged and it takes tools most banks don't have to tell when and by whom. Electronic records are more secure.
In Australia we adapted something very similar to ACH for inter-bank transfers. It was originally conceived for inter-bank settlement clearing, but the way the format was developed meant it was trivial to adapt it for consumer payments. Most banks offer inter-bank transfers via Direct Entry (the commonly used name for the system) at no (or sub-dollar) cost. Wire transfers are not generally used for domestic transactions; Swift is generally used for international transfers only.
Yes, v2 only. Then again, if you're relying on v1 for security, you're doing it wrong.
RekeyLimit Specifies the maximum amount of data that may be transmitted before the session key is renegotiated. The argument is the number of bytes, with an optional suffix of 'K', 'M', or 'G' to indicate Kilobytes, Megabytes, or Gigabytes, respectively. The default is between '1G' and '4G', depending on the cipher. This option applies to protocol version 2 only.
4G is a LOT of data to have compromised. Thus, sign out (or change your rekey limit, if your client supports it).
Actually, even if I set it to 1% of the lowest default, it would take a great deal of terminal traffic to force a renegotiation. Given the additional attack vector you introduce to the server (just compromise the always-connected client), and the fact that you're telling everyone between your client and the server about this vector with your traffic... You have a great point, but my advice stands. Sign out.
People often elevate privileges during terminal sessions. Leaving a screen session running with a shell su'd makes for a privilege-escalation attack a savvy 8-year-old could manage.
To further reinforce this point, in additional to longer compromise windows, you have larger quantities of data encrypted under the one session key. A primary component of encryption is key rotation, and the longer you leave your session open, the more historical data available to be compromised through the breaking of a single key. On the off-chance your opponent potentially has access to massive computing power (otherwise, why would you even be worried in the first place?), you're better to be rotating your session key regularly: thus, sign out.
That was my point. "... the shield law treated those procedures as punishment in itself and prevented the suit from even making it as far as the 'defendent/rescuer' having to respond..."
The article is pretty clear. It is saying that:
a) There is a problem that you can currently witness a crime, not report it, and you've done nothing wrnog (unless it's a violent crime against someone under 14).
b) There is a new law which fixes this problem.
You may think it's morally reprehensible to witness a crime and not report it, and I agree. But it is not a crime under the law (according to the article), but once the bill is signed in to law, it will be (for violent crimes, anyway).
My common knowledge shouldn't be at issue; firstly, everything I've said has been in relation to TFA. Secondly, I live in a different legal system with a completely different basis. I shouldn't be expected to know what is and isn't a crime in the US, except through common sense. And I said pretty clearly that I thought this law was codifying something which should be common sense anyway ("... being a bystander to rape is currently NOT a crime. It obviously "should be", thus the new law." -- Me, just a few posts ago).
I understand your reaction ("wtf, it's not a crime to witness a rape and not report it??!?") because that was my reaction too, but don't just jump down the throat of someone who's busy agreeing with you.
In my other comment (look up slightly) I discover this is wrong, and they are protected under law; some years ago they weren't, but it was changed (search for "Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld)"). Unfortunately, it seems like there's at least two paramedics who don't KNOW it changed, but now I can tell them. Maybe /. discussion just saved some lives?
I didn't say you said I advocated them. I said you set them up as strawmen to attack my argument, which is a logical fallacy. Reading comprehension really is wonderful.
Look up Godwin's Law. I don't think you have a clue what I'm talking about. No, wait: I'll do it for you. "Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." It has nothing to do with being against freedom.
Also, totalitarianism is not about a lack of freedom: it's about a TOTAL removal of freedoms (the clue is in the name). Every nation in the world today takes SOME freedoms away from its citizens.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said I was opposed to freedom. I'm just calling you out on being a fundie.
You said that governments shouldn't force people to do anything other than taxes, and I'm saying that modern civilization disagrees with you. Governments today force you to do things like send your kids to school, spend time in prison if you break a whole range of laws unrelated to tax, attend a court hearing if you're accused of a crime, respect property boundaries... The list goes on. Governments should force people to do things beyond just paying taxes, and most of the civilized world agrees.
My only reference so far is "it's a part of the official Qld first aid syllabus", based on the fact that my first aid instructor told me so.
From QUT's H&S site:
Even with the best intent, sometimes things could go wrong. The common law's position on this is it depends on all the circumstances of the case. Under current law, the fact that a person was acting in an emergency situation is relevant to deciding whether the person has been negligent. The emergency nature of the circumstances and the skills of the good Samaritan are taken into account in determining whether the good Samaritan has acted reasonably.
Most jurisdictions (apart from Queensland and Tasmania) have introduced laws to clarify the position of good Samaritans and to provide them with protection from liability for acts or omissions done or made in good faith. While Queensland does not yet have good Samaritan law to shield good Samaritans from civil liability like most other states, it is worth examining other states’ provisions to understand the key elements that form the protection. Although different from state to state, the essential elements for good Samaritans to be protected from civil liability include:
* The assistance must be given in circumstances of emergency;
* The acts or omissions are done or made in good faith and without reckless disregard for the safety of the person in distress or someone else;
and
* The assistance is provided without expectation of payment or other consideration.
However, such protection from liability does not apply if the good Samaritan was significantly impaired by alcohol or other recreational drug.
Which, on the face of it, looks less rosy (in QLD) than I was told, although perhaps things are better in other states. Google "Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld)" for this quote:
Liability at law shall not attach to a medical practitioner, nurse or other person prescribed under a regulation in respect of an act done or omitted in the course of rendering medical care, aid or assistance to an injured person in circumstances of emergency—
(a) at or near the scene of the incident or other occurrence constituting the emergency;
(b) while the injured person is being transported from the scene of the incident or other occurrence constituting the emergency to a hospital or other place at which adequate medical care is available;
if—
(c) the act is done or omitted in good faith and without gross negligence; and
(d) the services are performed without fee or reward or expectation of fee or reward.
So doctors and nurses ARE protected barring GROSS negligence (contrary to what I'd been told), although nothing yet has specifically contradicted what I was told about Good Samaritan law applying in Qld (I don't count QUT saying it doesn't, as they may just be covering their collective behinds).
AHA! Google "CIVIL LIABILITY (GOOD SAMARITAN) AMENDMENT BILL 2007" and read the PDF. This is Queensland legislation (which I'm interested in personally), but has commentary about the protections in other states.
Clause 4 inserts s 27A into chapter 2, part 1, division 7. This new provision inserts into the CLA legal protection for persons who assist persons in distress. Subsection (1) provides that civil liability will not attach to persons in relation to an act done or omitted to be done in the course of rendering first aid or other aid or assistance to a person in distress. Subsections s 27(1)(a) and (b) qualify this legal protection by requiring that such aid or assistance must be provided in circumstances of emergency and that the act done or omitted must have been in good faith and without reckless disregard for the safety of the person in distress or someone else.
And there you have it. Good samaritans are protected in Qld. For other states it appears, from references I've read, to be the same, but IANAL and YMMV. Googling this stuff isn't that bad: I got my final definitive reference by googling "good samaritan law queensland" (without the quotes).
Yes, in that they won't specifically take cash AWAY from you if they catch you; net gain.
The problem is that many law systems have procedures to go through before the 'laughter' phase, but the shield law treated those procedures as punishment in itself and prevented the suit from even making it as far as the 'defendent/rescuer' having to respond to an initial complaint.
I never endorsed murder, rape, theft, or totalitarianism, so you've added strawman to your ad hominem, and I think using 'totalitarianism' (being a concept strongly related, in many people's minds, to Hitler) is enough for me to call Godwin.
I said that there are perfectly valid positions which are acceptable in modern civilized countries which run contrary to your position, which you stated as "Governments aren't supposed to be forcing citizens to do anything beyond paying taxes for the bare necessities".
In fact, most (all?) modern governments 'force' their citizens to do much more than that. I get that you disagree with it, but it doesn't mean you get to question someone else's character for not agreeing with you.
From TFA: ... Current law requires witnesses to report violent crimes when the victim is younger than 14. Nava's bill expands the requirement to include victims of all ages."
"Witnesses could be charged with a misdemeanor for failing to report violent attacks in California under legislation approved by the state Assembly.
Thus, reading TFA, it is currently NOT a crime to witness a crime and not report it. I don't know if it's correct, but it's what TFA says. I should point out that, based on the article, it is still LEGAL to witness a non-violent crime and not report it.
As I read TFA, the problem is that being a bystander to rape is currently NOT a crime. It obviously "should be", thus the new law.
It was mentioned in TFA.
Uhm, what do you think governments are for then? Forcing individuals into doing things that should not be done?
Governments aren't supposed to be forcing citizens to do anything beyond paying taxes for the bare necessities (military, roads, emergency services, etc). The fact that you think governments should be forcing people to do things does not speak well of your character.
Actually, it just means you disagree with him. There are all sorts of political philosophies which are perfectly accepted in modern civilized countries which run contrary to your position.
You're kidding, right? I've never heard of this before. PLEASE tell me you're kidding.
I KNOW we don't have such a stupid system in Australia (or at least, didn't), because I once saw a couple of guys beating someone up and called 000 (our 911 equivalent). A loud noise could easily have landed me a beating too.
I'm not so sure this law is 'stupidity'. It only applies to violent crime, and it only requires that the witness report it, not intervene, not even make a scene. Just make a discreet phone call. I'd like to see more debate before labeling this a 'bad' law.
That's not to say the rest of your rant doesn't ring true, though.