What comes next is the impact of that technology on the structure of society, and I think we're just beginning to see what that's going to be.
I think it's brain-dead obvious, because there's already been huge impact. If I had to summarize what I've gleaned so far of Schmidt's book, it's "more of the same". We already have information at our fingertips, social networks, online shopping, online news, online gaming, free exchange of information, Internet companies, the "Cloud" as a commodity, etc. The Internet has pervaded everything.
This book is even more pathetic than Gates' late to the Internet party book, "The Road Ahead", and that was published in 1995.
If you've ever been in any slaughter house you'll see there is little humane about our treatment of animals. Most people don't care because they are just animals and have little in the way of rights.
I'm willing to bet most people do care, which is why they'd rather not be confronted with it. They'd prefer to keep believing that the animals are humanely raised and slaughtered. Personally, I've seen enough and found it disturbing... but I still like eating meat too much, and when it gets on my plate it's yummy food, not factory farmed, slaughtered animals.
If I wanted a shill story I sure as hell wouldn't get Bennett Haselton to write it. Half of Slashdot hates him, and most of the rest refuse to read his walls of text.
I read the first sentence and then stripped straight to the comments, mostly looking for the hate and the synopsis of what he was blathering on about.
I think the whole idea of the Internet as a transformative technology is overblown.
And it's 20 years old. Seriously, 2013 and we're being treated to a book about how great the Internet is going to be? It happened.
It's nice, it's convenient, but compared to some of the truly transformative technologies we had in the 19th and first 50-60 years of the 20th century, it's a yawn.
I disagree. The amount of information at your fingertips is truly transformative. With a quick search I can find out information that may have taken several days to get before. You can achieve a college-level education by watching free online videos. I can communicate with people around the world.
The ease of self-publishing is truly phenomenal. Traditional newspapers were brought to their knees. Countless startup business working out of a garage have succeeded on the Internet.
Why should it be a 5th amendment defense when they're not sure you even have the keys to decrypt?
Because providing the keys is equivalent to answering the question: "Do you have privileged access to encrypted files on this device?" Based on the 5th, he does not have to answer that question either in the positive or negative.
Not quite, because I'm saying even if they knew for a fact that he could assist and it was he who encrypted the drive, it is still misleading to say he is "standing in he way". If he had a gun and was protecting it, then yes. But he hasn't denied them the ability to conduct their search. This is my opinion regardless of whatever the legal position is.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the governmentâ(TM)s âoeApplication Under the All Writs Act Requiring Jeffrey Feldman to Assist in the Execution of Previously-Issued Search Warrantâ be and hereby is DENIED.
And just to get back to my original point, what they are asking him to do is assist in their search. He is not "standing in the way", a biased way of phrasing the argument.
The court has already subpoena'ed the data, so there's no "show me your warrant" defense.
I understand your position, and the legal justification, but I don't believe you should be compelled to provide information, whether in your mind or in your paperwork, as part of discovery if it incriminates you. That's what search warrants are for. Also, going back to my original post, I object to not providing documents or keys as being framed as "standing in the way".
It doesn't even seem like a 4th amendment issue when you explain it that way.
We're talking about the 5th and limits on incriminating yourself. I brought up search warrants to show that they are used to get information that the 5th protects.
In 1998, the concept of scheduling meetings using your phone was not obvious at all.
These are bullshit patents following the long tradition of: "on a computer", to "on the Internet", to "on a mobile device". Yes, in 1998 shitty cell phones with small screens and limited inputs weren't used to schedule meetings. As the devices became more like general purpose computers scheduling meetings with them became common, duh.
Bill Gates on patents, circa 1991: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. [..] In many application categories straighforward thinking ahead allows you to come up with patentable ideas."
You should try actually quoting the evidence. I wasted time and read through the interview on wikileaks.org. Outside of not knowing about Bitcoin, nothing stood out, and not knowing about Bitcoin is equivalent to not knowing about Tor, as the interview took place nearly two years ago, before all the Bitcoin hoopla started penetrating the mainstream.
Except lack of knowledge about Tor, an extremely minor part of the Internet, is poor evidence that Schmidt doesn't "understand any of it". Choose a better example.
He also said in the wikileaks interview with him he doesn't even know what Tor is.
So what? As privacy obsessed individuals lots of Slashdotters know what it is, and of course so would the founder of Wikileaks. For somebody running an Internet business the size of Google, it's nothing, not even a blip on the radar.
If it was a bank ledger, you could not claim to the IRS it was confidential data protected by fifth amendment rights, and thus excluded from discovery.
I see very little difference between being forced to actively hand over all incriminating documents pertaining to a matter and being compelled to be a witness against myself. The point of search warrants are to obtain evidence that a suspect would naturally not want to provide. Compulsion beyond that is arguably a fifth amendment violation.
by not providing the combination you are standing in the way of the court to evaluate the evidence
Bold mine. No, you are not standing in the way. You just refuse to help. They could search for the key to their heart's content, or if it was a physical safe, break it open.
But, what's worse is that the spending hasn't been on anything which benefited the average citizen, it's mostly on things that benefit the rich.
Bush did pass the drug benefit bill when he was running for re-election, which of course was also a big payout for the drug companies. While I was looking that up, I checked to see who sponsored the bill, and it was the Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who was implicated in a Turkish bribe by an FBI whistleblower who was subsequently fired. Hastert later retired and went on to earn $35k per month as a lobbyist for Turkey.
If somebody else also identified the perp but didn't get their legs blown off, do you think it would have made the news over the double amputee doing it? It's just standard procedure for the authorities and media to try and make heroes out of ordinary acts in tragic situations.
Every now and then I will watch a new episode of American Dad and it's never funny any more.
I never found it funny in the first place. Couldn't stand the kid, and even worse, didn't like the Dad character. I liked the alien character, and the wife was ok, but not enough to put up with the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
What comes next is the impact of that technology on the structure of society, and I think we're just beginning to see what that's going to be.
I think it's brain-dead obvious, because there's already been huge impact. If I had to summarize what I've gleaned so far of Schmidt's book, it's "more of the same". We already have information at our fingertips, social networks, online shopping, online news, online gaming, free exchange of information, Internet companies, the "Cloud" as a commodity, etc. The Internet has pervaded everything.
This book is even more pathetic than Gates' late to the Internet party book, "The Road Ahead", and that was published in 1995.
If you've ever been in any slaughter house you'll see there is little humane about our treatment of animals. Most people don't care because they are just animals and have little in the way of rights.
I'm willing to bet most people do care, which is why they'd rather not be confronted with it. They'd prefer to keep believing that the animals are humanely raised and slaughtered. Personally, I've seen enough and found it disturbing... but I still like eating meat too much, and when it gets on my plate it's yummy food, not factory farmed, slaughtered animals.
If I wanted a shill story I sure as hell wouldn't get Bennett Haselton to write it. Half of Slashdot hates him, and most of the rest refuse to read his walls of text.
I read the first sentence and then stripped straight to the comments, mostly looking for the hate and the synopsis of what he was blathering on about.
I think the whole idea of the Internet as a transformative technology is overblown.
And it's 20 years old. Seriously, 2013 and we're being treated to a book about how great the Internet is going to be? It happened.
It's nice, it's convenient, but compared to some of the truly transformative technologies we had in the 19th and first 50-60 years of the 20th century, it's a yawn.
I disagree. The amount of information at your fingertips is truly transformative. With a quick search I can find out information that may have taken several days to get before. You can achieve a college-level education by watching free online videos. I can communicate with people around the world.
The ease of self-publishing is truly phenomenal. Traditional newspapers were brought to their knees. Countless startup business working out of a garage have succeeded on the Internet.
A world connected in spectacular fashion.
he has the power to assist
The power to assist is not the same thing as standing in the way. That's why the judge used the word assist and compulsion in his decision.
Why should it be a 5th amendment defense when they're not sure you even have the keys to decrypt?
Because providing the keys is equivalent to answering the question: "Do you have privileged access to encrypted files on this device?" Based on the 5th, he does not have to answer that question either in the positive or negative.
I think I get it now. Thanks!
Not quite, because I'm saying even if they knew for a fact that he could assist and it was he who encrypted the drive, it is still misleading to say he is "standing in he way". If he had a gun and was protecting it, then yes. But he hasn't denied them the ability to conduct their search. This is my opinion regardless of whatever the legal position is.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the governmentâ(TM)s âoeApplication Under the All Writs Act Requiring Jeffrey Feldman to Assist in the Execution of Previously-Issued Search Warrantâ be and hereby is DENIED.
And just to get back to my original point, what they are asking him to do is assist in their search. He is not "standing in the way", a biased way of phrasing the argument.
The court has already subpoena'ed the data, so there's no "show me your warrant" defense.
I understand your position, and the legal justification, but I don't believe you should be compelled to provide information, whether in your mind or in your paperwork, as part of discovery if it incriminates you. That's what search warrants are for. Also, going back to my original post, I object to not providing documents or keys as being framed as "standing in the way".
It doesn't even seem like a 4th amendment issue when you explain it that way.
We're talking about the 5th and limits on incriminating yourself. I brought up search warrants to show that they are used to get information that the 5th protects.
what the hell am I doing in this forsaken rock?
Science has provided the answer: No particular reason. You are an accident of evolution. Feel better?
In 1998, the concept of scheduling meetings using your phone was not obvious at all.
These are bullshit patents following the long tradition of: "on a computer", to "on the Internet", to "on a mobile device". Yes, in 1998 shitty cell phones with small screens and limited inputs weren't used to schedule meetings. As the devices became more like general purpose computers scheduling meetings with them became common, duh.
Bill Gates on patents, circa 1991: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. [..] In many application categories straighforward thinking ahead allows you to come up with patentable ideas."
You should try actually quoting the evidence. I wasted time and read through the interview on wikileaks.org. Outside of not knowing about Bitcoin, nothing stood out, and not knowing about Bitcoin is equivalent to not knowing about Tor, as the interview took place nearly two years ago, before all the Bitcoin hoopla started penetrating the mainstream.
Except lack of knowledge about Tor, an extremely minor part of the Internet, is poor evidence that Schmidt doesn't "understand any of it". Choose a better example.
He also said in the wikileaks interview with him he doesn't even know what Tor is.
So what? As privacy obsessed individuals lots of Slashdotters know what it is, and of course so would the founder of Wikileaks. For somebody running an Internet business the size of Google, it's nothing, not even a blip on the radar.
If it was a bank ledger, you could not claim to the IRS it was confidential data protected by fifth amendment rights, and thus excluded from discovery.
I see very little difference between being forced to actively hand over all incriminating documents pertaining to a matter and being compelled to be a witness against myself. The point of search warrants are to obtain evidence that a suspect would naturally not want to provide. Compulsion beyond that is arguably a fifth amendment violation.
Bwahahahaha!
by not providing the combination you are standing in the way of the court to evaluate the evidence
Bold mine. No, you are not standing in the way. You just refuse to help. They could search for the key to their heart's content, or if it was a physical safe, break it open.
If anonymous speech didn't exist, this wouldn't have happened. The problem is anonymous speech.
Then why don't you lead by example and post to Slashdot using your real name, including both your address and photo?
As much as I hate Oracle, Guy Steele works there, so they aren't all bad.
As much as I'd like to like Guy Steele, he's just another corporate whore filing software patents for his paymasters.
We are destined to lose our freedom and our civil liberties. It is unavoidable.
"Can't win, don't try. Got it."
But, what's worse is that the spending hasn't been on anything which benefited the average citizen, it's mostly on things that benefit the rich.
Bush did pass the drug benefit bill when he was running for re-election, which of course was also a big payout for the drug companies. While I was looking that up, I checked to see who sponsored the bill, and it was the Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who was implicated in a Turkish bribe by an FBI whistleblower who was subsequently fired. Hastert later retired and went on to earn $35k per month as a lobbyist for Turkey.
Words fail me.
"driving around randomly throwing bombs" was not in the plan...
I can't help but think these guys were playing too much Grand Theft Auto.
I'm not belittling the man
Poor choice of words...
If somebody else also identified the perp but didn't get their legs blown off, do you think it would have made the news over the double amputee doing it? It's just standard procedure for the authorities and media to try and make heroes out of ordinary acts in tragic situations.
Every now and then I will watch a new episode of American Dad and it's never funny any more.
I never found it funny in the first place. Couldn't stand the kid, and even worse, didn't like the Dad character. I liked the alien character, and the wife was ok, but not enough to put up with the rest.