Would you tell something "in confidence" to someone who you expected to write down a detailed report of your statements, and send them into a system to analysed and passed around? Anyone speaking to a diplomat and expecting confidence was naive from day one.
I might have some sympathy here if it wasn't for the fact that the same people who are bitching about privacy are the ones who would think nothing of the invasion of other peoples privacy for their own ends. Somehow spying is better when its public? Better when its the people who pretend to represent us?
Turnabout is fair play, and thats all that happened.
But what is it that the anti-privacy crowd likes to say "if you have nothing to hide, then what are you worried about?"
These people aren't going to be getting in trouble for anything that they didn't say or didn't do. They work for an organization that has many arms, some of which, engage in this sort of espionage.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not? I think its nice that there is, for once, a covert espionage organization that actually works for us and not just the government's whose thumbs we live under. (for the people, by the people my ass)
Do you remember, a few years back, when the swastika was removed, by microsoft, from one of their fonts? It was, as I remember, at the request of some jewish group that had heard about it.
The only problem was... they removed it from a sanskrit font. Talk about context issues!
Actually, when I was a kid, and first saw the swastika, with no context at all. I thought they were pretty cool, I even remember drawing a bunch of them on my chaulk board before my father took me aside and told me that I probably want to be careful where I draw that because not everyone appreciates the symbol (I was a bit too young to understand much more of an explanation than that)
There is something really cool about the symbol itself. I can't put my finger on what it is, but, it may be part of why they picked it as their symbol.
Then again, I really like the toothbrush mustache too, and think it really is too bad that Hitler killed it too. I mean, it is silly isn't it? Ok, he raised an army that tried to take over land by force and slaughtered millions, monsterous stuff, but, what was his mustache's role in all that? Isn't it an innocent bystander here?
I mean, these bans make about as much sense as meeting Hitler's cousins grand daughter and telling her that she is an evil bitch and should just die because she is a relative of Hitler.
Its funny, but I think this troll feeding brings up a real question here for me... why is it that we can only discuss this as an "either/or"?
Why is every argument about regulation reduced to "more government vs more corporate overlords"?
I think that both sides really do have points here.
It isn't hard to dislike the FCC. Even if you, as I do, admit that they were started for fairly valid reasons. They have, as is the nature of political beasts, been pushed by vocal minorities to impose censorship of content, and to actually enforce it.
That said, its easy to dislike companies on this net neutrality issue. My ISP is going to take my money for providing service, and then sell my network performance to third parties? They already sold it to me, now they are going to let someone else pay to make it better?
I can understand the need to shape traffic, or outright limit bandwidth. That I am ok with, what I am not ok with is other companies being given the option to bribe my ISP to affect my service. Even more so, that my ISP would, essentially, want to use it as a form of blackmail. "We have X users, we will degrade all of their traffic to your site unless you pay us". As a paying customer, I resent being used in such a way, especially in such a way as to mean that my service, which I paid for, is going to be degraded for the scheme. Its one thing to offer less, or degrade service to capacity reasons, but... just to blackmail other companies? Its my service, the service which I pay for shouldn't make any distinctions about what I want to connect to.
Of course, we have that problem of, many agree that something should be done. This move by the FCC is something. It doesn't really follow that that makes it the right thing.
I wasn't trying to take any of that into account. The original post was about a car that made it through in a time that was approaching that of a skilled human driver.
The time to make it through a course, being the only consideration, since it is not "how many times can it make it through the course at that speed before the car mechanically fails".
Otherwise, why not compare its ability to make it through the course against my grandmother? (who, I seriously believe, is unaware of the fact that she has a gas peddle and could use it)
While I do not doubt that these e-drivers will quickly come to out drive most of us, doesn't it come down to a question of how close to the physical capabilities of the car the driver can go or is going already? I expect them to be more reliable overall, more attentive (obviously) and more able to repeat their own performance. However, I am not necessarily so sure that there really is that much more capability for them to squeeze out of the cars than a trained pro driver on a test course is already able to squeeze out.
Driving maneuvers are a constant trade off, the closer to the physical capabilities of the car you come, the faster you can traverse a course, however, it also means having less ability to make adjustments and corrections. It is a crude example but, If 99% of my available traction is being used to make this turn, at this speed,I only have 1% more to add if I need to make an adjustment to my course, or speed.
Admittedly cars can then be redesigned to push those limits.....but thats another issue.
It isn't so much about trial by jury I don't believe in, its the law I don't believe in. Trial as a form of redress of grievance, I am ok with, as a general concept. Its the specific implementation of it, the so called government (that I just consider to be a gang).
Its like... how much would you believe in "the system" if "the system" was an MS-13 gang member telling you to show up in the park to be on a "jury" in their new trial system. I don't see how this court system is more legitimate than that.
When I was younger, before I decided that I would want to serve...
They give out a questionnaire. One of the questions was "is there any other reason why you feel you would have a hard time being impartial".
I wrote simply "Just my resentment at being forced to participate in a system that I don't believe in".
No idea if most judges even read them. However, one of the cases was a rape case, and for that one, they called each potential juror in individually. I was called in, I sat down. The judge looked down at my questionaire for a second and immediately said "You are dismissed".
Heh, my mother was working at a major hospital when Princess Di checked in for some treatment. This was the mid 90s, and they already had some of the beginings of modern electronic medical records then. They also had auditing.
It was amazing how many hospital workers got their wrists slapped for checking out her records in the database. I think it was their first real introduction to the fact that auditing was going on.
Thats one of the interesting things about technology. We have always had rules. Society is full of rules. However, at no time before the present, has it really been possible to be watching, so much of the time, over so many people.
Should it really be any surprise that the vast majority of people act differently when they know they are being watched? Should it be any surprise that we all have the impulse to break a rule now and again when it seems harmless to us (and nobody is watching). I mean, come on, saving that body scan of the hot girl... who is ever going to know? If nobody knows, no harm no foul right?
It is so easy to see why the abuse happens, and often, the abuser even, well its often to see why they would not think their seemingly (to them) minor and harmless infraction is ok. I don't think you can avoid it, and will always have abuse whenever there is power, so we should only put people in positions of power, when we actually need to.
Well part of that is just the debate being framed wrong. You could look at it as the TSA vs Planes going down... and maybe it is. However, their best case scenario is to convince terrorists to... bomb shopping malls, commuter trains, and sporting events instead.
SO in reality, they are choosing to save businessmen, at the expense of children's lives.
I have been saying that since 9/11. In fact, on the very day, I was saying to people that the response is a far more scary thing than the event. I don't let publicity stunts like a few guys flying a couple of planes into buildings, change how I view the world.
I was against ID checks at airports before 9/11, I never once changed my tune.
For the record, I also was against both wars, though I have changed my tune there. I used to think these were unjustified wars, now I think war is unjustifiable since it costs the lives of others, with no guarantee of accomplishing any specific goal. Modern conflicts which have made enemy decapitation (removal of leadership, not literal removal of heads) ineffective have made this even more painfully obvious.
No, what you should be worried about is that other people are concerned, and the government that represents them doesn't give a shit.
You should be concerned that the government that represents them lied to everyone and said that images could not be saved on the machines that the TSA was getting.
You should be concerned that you are being asked to give up more and more privacy, now the privacy of what is under your clothes and in your pockets, for little more than the simple assertion that it is needed, with nothing of significance to show any real credible threat whatsoever.
That is usually what I notice about Schneier. He doesn't really say much that is revolutionary. He pretty much just gives a level headed, common sense, appraisal of the situation. The thing is, what he does sounds absolutely revolutionary against the backdrop of all the people who are fear mongers or design their systems around articles and papers without taking into account their own situation.
The problem with security is, it always lends itself to imagination. We could sit down, all day, with nearly any complex situation, and dream up attack vectors, scenarios, etc. Since we can imagine all these things, it seems reasonable to devise protection against them. What is less obvious is, that guessing which vector someone will use, and then securing against it, is a never ending game with never ending costs. It isn't useful to spend top dollar to get locks that are hard to pick when an attacker is just going to smash in your window.
Of course, then you can bar the windows... install heavy duty doors, special locks, cameras, point to point wireless links to move security video off site.... but... if it worth it if all that security equipment costs as much as all the valuables that you wish to protect? What if you live in a place where there hasn't even been a B&E in the past several years?
Security is risk management. If you are not taking your situation, and especially which scenarios are the most likely, then you are not really managing risk. If your only purpose is to look like you are managing risk, then it is really better to call what you are doing "entertainment".
Use javascript to implement Diffie-Hellman key exchange, and then use the shared key to embed authentication messages into requests. Since an eavesdropper can't easily divine the key, the server could easily detect and reject requests from a hijacker.
This requires that the system be armored against replay attacks (reusing the same authentication message) but... doing so would also prevent form resubmissions, often a problem in web apps.
There are cases where you can't rely on this. I did some work on Tor "Location Hidden Services". In such a setup you will only ever see local IP's since the system does a double blind to prevent either side from knowing the other's IP. (of course, it also garauntees end to "end" (the tor router, not actually the final process, but they are usually on the same box) encryption without the need for https.
That is a very strange case. However, this fails in much more mundane cases. Look at black sheep. What does it do? It watches network traffic. That implies that the attacker is on the local network. In many cases (think: most people's homes) this means being NAT'd through the same public IP... thus circumventing IP/session checks.
Oddly, I come from the more ultra-liberal ideas (I consider myself an anarchist) but, I agree with GP. I think what you are missing is... yes... "socialized medicine" would be a huge money sink. However, its not the creation of a money sink...its the replacement of one with another.
Medicine can only be a money sink. It is a cost, it is overhead. Right now, it is already a huge, and growing, money sink that is already a huge drag on the economy. Just because it would be a larger money sink than any of the ones that exist now, by consolidating those many sinks into one, there could be a lot of savings.
Insurance companies, really, are a sort of casino. They are just playing massive odds over large populations and offering bets. In this case, there is a purpose of course as they spread the risk of major illness and its costs amongst a large group of people. Its really just a hedge bet... A person without insurance is betting everything on not getting bankruptingly sick. A person with insurance is still betting on that, but hedging that bet against the possibility of getting sick to cut losses.
In a pure value in/value out sense, insurance is a bad buy, however, it mitigates risk, and makes itself a very good buy in that way.
That said, its become nearly a necessity. I wouldn't think of putting myself in a position where my wife and I had to go buy insurance on our own. Even in MA where a miniature version of these healthcare reforms were put in place a few years back, it is still too much of a risk.
Giving people a bit more mobility would be a good thing. Especially if it saves money overall while doing it. In the end, its not like we are going from a well working, unregulated system and nationalizing it, if we did implement it. What we have is already a huge mess.
However two different "machines" (even two different browser sessions on the same machine) should get different session IDs. As such, this would be expected, since each session is independent. The session ID is, generally, just a cookie with a specific value, your browser hands this back with every request, thus associating each request to the session.
So if you logout, and that invalidates the session, then this is to be expected, since each browser/machine has its own session cookie, each one is independent.
This is not the situation for a hijacked session. The original session and the hijacker will both have the same ID. So when you log out, if that invalidates the session properly, then the hijacker is logged out too, even if other sessions are still active.
Of course, this is "in general how it works". Most sites probably follow this model and will work this way. There is nothing to say all sites will. A site could easily correlate sessions and either allow only one session at a time for a user, or any number of things that would make it behave differently.... but usually you will have different sessions in each browser.
Why? I don't see the need. I would rather they say it out in the open than behind closed doors.
Frankly, I think this whole issue shows a shameful lack of imagination. Have these people considered that, maybe they should, just this once, stoop to the terrorists level... and put out response videos.
Seriously. We decry terrorists because they use violence as a political tool, however, we are willing to use the threat of legal violence to stop their message from being broadcast. Are words not an improvement over bombs? Why not answer them directly? Video for video. Let the debate be had, and let people decide who they will listen to.
Or...are we to believe that this isn't a debate that we can win? Is the argument for peace and progress really so weak? Are we too proud to admit that we have ever used violence for reasons that were less than honorable?
Or are the politicians, and their employees, too good to debate in the open in the same forum as common people?
The message will be out there, whether you ban it or not. I don't think sticking your head in the sand or shooting the messengers is helpful here.
Actually, there have been a few around here the past couple of years.
In fact, here in MA, we have a politician who is in court right now arguing that he doesn't recall being slipped an envelope. Sadly, the FBI informant botched the drop, and the video evidence sucks too, so, he is likely to get off.
A couple of years ago they caught Dianne Wilkerson on camera, taking a bribe envelope and tossing it in her bra. Amusingly, both of these cases.... cash for liquor licenses.
Just follow the money man. Though, these days, the corruption is built right into the system. Even that arizona immigration law. Say what you want about immigration, it was pushed for and written by, a buisness group as part of their business plan to build big new prisons and make money by filling them up. Since they get paid per prisoner per day, and the feds have little incentive or resources to process and deport them.... adding an Arizona law to make the police detain and hold them means.... $$$$ for the prison owners.
30 of the 36 co-sponsors of that bill received donations from prison industry lobbyists within weeks of the bill co-sponsorship. But hey... that is all legal.
Slashdot Mirror
And rightfully so!
Would you tell something "in confidence" to someone who you expected to write down a detailed report of your statements, and send them into a system to analysed and passed around? Anyone speaking to a diplomat and expecting confidence was naive from day one.
I might have some sympathy here if it wasn't for the fact that the same people who are bitching about privacy are the ones who would think nothing of the invasion of other peoples privacy for their own ends. Somehow spying is better when its public? Better when its the people who pretend to represent us?
Turnabout is fair play, and thats all that happened.
-Steve
But what is it that the anti-privacy crowd likes to say "if you have nothing to hide, then what are you worried about?"
These people aren't going to be getting in trouble for anything that they didn't say or didn't do. They work for an organization that has many arms, some of which, engage in this sort of espionage.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not? I think its nice that there is, for once, a covert espionage organization that actually works for us and not just the government's whose thumbs we live under. (for the people, by the people my ass)
-Steve
Do you remember, a few years back, when the swastika was removed, by microsoft, from one of their fonts? It was, as I remember, at the request of some jewish group that had heard about it.
The only problem was... they removed it from a sanskrit font. Talk about context issues!
Actually, when I was a kid, and first saw the swastika, with no context at all. I thought they were pretty cool, I even remember drawing a bunch of them on my chaulk board before my father took me aside and told me that I probably want to be careful where I draw that because not everyone appreciates the symbol (I was a bit too young to understand much more of an explanation than that)
There is something really cool about the symbol itself. I can't put my finger on what it is, but, it may be part of why they picked it as their symbol.
Then again, I really like the toothbrush mustache too, and think it really is too bad that Hitler killed it too. I mean, it is silly isn't it? Ok, he raised an army that tried to take over land by force and slaughtered millions, monsterous stuff, but, what was his mustache's role in all that? Isn't it an innocent bystander here?
I mean, these bans make about as much sense as meeting Hitler's cousins grand daughter and telling her that she is an evil bitch and should just die because she is a relative of Hitler.
-Steve
On the other hand, I send the link to my wife saying "baby, I bet I can convince you to make more pies"
-Steve
Its funny, but I think this troll feeding brings up a real question here for me... why is it that we can only discuss this as an "either/or"?
Why is every argument about regulation reduced to "more government vs more corporate overlords"?
I think that both sides really do have points here.
It isn't hard to dislike the FCC. Even if you, as I do, admit that they were started for fairly valid reasons. They have, as is the nature of political beasts, been pushed by vocal minorities to impose censorship of content, and to actually enforce it.
That said, its easy to dislike companies on this net neutrality issue. My ISP is going to take my money for providing service, and then sell my network performance to third parties? They already sold it to me, now they are going to let someone else pay to make it better?
I can understand the need to shape traffic, or outright limit bandwidth. That I am ok with, what I am not ok with is other companies being given the option to bribe my ISP to affect my service. Even more so, that my ISP would, essentially, want to use it as a form of blackmail. "We have X users, we will degrade all of their traffic to your site unless you pay us". As a paying customer, I resent being used in such a way, especially in such a way as to mean that my service, which I paid for, is going to be degraded for the scheme. Its one thing to offer less, or degrade service to capacity reasons, but... just to blackmail other companies? Its my service, the service which I pay for shouldn't make any distinctions about what I want to connect to.
Of course, we have that problem of, many agree that something should be done. This move by the FCC is something. It doesn't really follow that that makes it the right thing.
I wasn't trying to take any of that into account. The original post was about a car that made it through in a time that was approaching that of a skilled human driver.
The time to make it through a course, being the only consideration, since it is not "how many times can it make it through the course at that speed before the car mechanically fails".
Otherwise, why not compare its ability to make it through the course against my grandmother? (who, I seriously believe, is unaware of the fact that she has a gas peddle and could use it)
While I do not doubt that these e-drivers will quickly come to out drive most of us, doesn't it come down to a question of how close to the physical capabilities of the car the driver can go or is going already? I expect them to be more reliable overall, more attentive (obviously) and more able to repeat their own performance. However, I am not necessarily so sure that there really is that much more capability for them to squeeze out of the cars than a trained pro driver on a test course is already able to squeeze out.
Driving maneuvers are a constant trade off, the closer to the physical capabilities of the car you come, the faster you can traverse a course, however, it also means having less ability to make adjustments and corrections. It is a crude example but, If 99% of my available traction is being used to make this turn, at this speed,I only have 1% more to add if I need to make an adjustment to my course, or speed.
Admittedly cars can then be redesigned to push those limits.....but thats another issue.
-Steve
It isn't so much about trial by jury I don't believe in, its the law I don't believe in. Trial as a form of redress of grievance, I am ok with, as a general concept. Its the specific implementation of it, the so called government (that I just consider to be a gang).
Its like... how much would you believe in "the system" if "the system" was an MS-13 gang member telling you to show up in the park to be on a "jury" in their new trial system. I don't see how this court system is more legitimate than that.
When I was younger, before I decided that I would want to serve...
They give out a questionnaire. One of the questions was "is there any other reason why you feel you would have a hard time being impartial".
I wrote simply "Just my resentment at being forced to participate in a system that I don't believe in".
No idea if most judges even read them. However, one of the cases was a rape case, and for that one, they called each potential juror in individually. I was called in, I sat down. The judge looked down at my questionaire for a second and immediately said "You are dismissed".
What can they do? Punish me for honesty?
-Steve
Heh, my mother was working at a major hospital when Princess Di checked in for some treatment. This was the mid 90s, and they already had some of the beginings of modern electronic medical records then. They also had auditing.
It was amazing how many hospital workers got their wrists slapped for checking out her records in the database. I think it was their first real introduction to the fact that auditing was going on.
Thats one of the interesting things about technology. We have always had rules. Society is full of rules. However, at no time before the present, has it really been possible to be watching, so much of the time, over so many people.
Should it really be any surprise that the vast majority of people act differently when they know they are being watched? Should it be any surprise that we all have the impulse to break a rule now and again when it seems harmless to us (and nobody is watching). I mean, come on, saving that body scan of the hot girl... who is ever going to know? If nobody knows, no harm no foul right?
It is so easy to see why the abuse happens, and often, the abuser even, well its often to see why they would not think their seemingly (to them) minor and harmless infraction is ok. I don't think you can avoid it, and will always have abuse whenever there is power, so we should only put people in positions of power, when we actually need to.
-Steve
Well part of that is just the debate being framed wrong. You could look at it as the TSA vs Planes going down... and maybe it is. However, their best case scenario is to convince terrorists to... bomb shopping malls, commuter trains, and sporting events instead.
SO in reality, they are choosing to save businessmen, at the expense of children's lives.
You just have to frame the debate properly.
-Steve
Humans did. Does tribe designation really matter? The point is, we survived our own brutality, against ourselves.
Where was I?
I have been saying that since 9/11. In fact, on the very day, I was saying to people that the response is a far more scary thing than the event. I don't let publicity stunts like a few guys flying a couple of planes into buildings, change how I view the world.
I was against ID checks at airports before 9/11, I never once changed my tune.
For the record, I also was against both wars, though I have changed my tune there. I used to think these were unjustified wars, now I think war is unjustifiable since it costs the lives of others, with no guarantee of accomplishing any specific goal. Modern conflicts which have made enemy decapitation (removal of leadership, not literal removal of heads) ineffective have made this even more painfully obvious.
So in short, I have been right here.
-Steve
No, what you should be worried about is that other people are concerned, and the government that represents them doesn't give a shit.
You should be concerned that the government that represents them lied to everyone and said that images could not be saved on the machines that the TSA was getting.
You should be concerned that you are being asked to give up more and more privacy, now the privacy of what is under your clothes and in your pockets, for little more than the simple assertion that it is needed, with nothing of significance to show any real credible threat whatsoever.
-Steve
People have done it here too... we call it... stealing power.
Yes, you can steal power from lines, you can even do it via induction.
Also... inverter? You only use an inverter to go from DC to AC. It was probably a small power transformer.
-Steve
That is usually what I notice about Schneier. He doesn't really say much that is revolutionary. He pretty much just gives a level headed, common sense, appraisal of the situation. The thing is, what he does sounds absolutely revolutionary against the backdrop of all the people who are fear mongers or design their systems around articles and papers without taking into account their own situation.
The problem with security is, it always lends itself to imagination. We could sit down, all day, with nearly any complex situation, and dream up attack vectors, scenarios, etc. Since we can imagine all these things, it seems reasonable to devise protection against them. What is less obvious is, that guessing which vector someone will use, and then securing against it, is a never ending game with never ending costs. It isn't useful to spend top dollar to get locks that are hard to pick when an attacker is just going to smash in your window.
Of course, then you can bar the windows... install heavy duty doors, special locks, cameras, point to point wireless links to move security video off site.... but... if it worth it if all that security equipment costs as much as all the valuables that you wish to protect? What if you live in a place where there hasn't even been a B&E in the past several years?
Security is risk management. If you are not taking your situation, and especially which scenarios are the most likely, then you are not really managing risk. If your only purpose is to look like you are managing risk, then it is really better to call what you are doing "entertainment".
-Steve
That or whoever did the planning had last visited LA back in the 90s and figured that nobody could see that far out anyway.
I am Spartacus!
What you could do....
Use javascript to implement Diffie-Hellman key exchange, and then use the shared key to embed authentication messages into requests. Since an eavesdropper can't easily divine the key, the server could easily detect and reject requests from a hijacker.
This requires that the system be armored against replay attacks (reusing the same authentication message) but... doing so would also prevent form resubmissions, often a problem in web apps.
Yup, but in this case, it might not help.
There are cases where you can't rely on this. I did some work on Tor "Location Hidden Services". In such a setup you will only ever see local IP's since the system does a double blind to prevent either side from knowing the other's IP. (of course, it also garauntees end to "end" (the tor router, not actually the final process, but they are usually on the same box) encryption without the need for https.
That is a very strange case. However, this fails in much more mundane cases. Look at black sheep. What does it do? It watches network traffic. That implies that the attacker is on the local network. In many cases (think: most people's homes) this means being NAT'd through the same public IP... thus circumventing IP/session checks.
Oddly, I come from the more ultra-liberal ideas (I consider myself an anarchist) but, I agree with GP. I think what you are missing is... yes... "socialized medicine" would be a huge money sink. However, its not the creation of a money sink...its the replacement of one with another.
Medicine can only be a money sink. It is a cost, it is overhead. Right now, it is already a huge, and growing, money sink that is already a huge drag on the economy. Just because it would be a larger money sink than any of the ones that exist now, by consolidating those many sinks into one, there could be a lot of savings.
Insurance companies, really, are a sort of casino. They are just playing massive odds over large populations and offering bets. In this case, there is a purpose of course as they spread the risk of major illness and its costs amongst a large group of people. Its really just a hedge bet... A person without insurance is betting everything on not getting bankruptingly sick. A person with insurance is still betting on that, but hedging that bet against the possibility of getting sick to cut losses.
In a pure value in/value out sense, insurance is a bad buy, however, it mitigates risk, and makes itself a very good buy in that way.
That said, its become nearly a necessity. I wouldn't think of putting myself in a position where my wife and I had to go buy insurance on our own. Even in MA where a miniature version of these healthcare reforms were put in place a few years back, it is still too much of a risk.
Giving people a bit more mobility would be a good thing. Especially if it saves money overall while doing it. In the end, its not like we are going from a well working, unregulated system and nationalizing it, if we did implement it. What we have is already a huge mess.
-Steve
However two different "machines" (even two different browser sessions on the same machine) should get different session IDs. As such, this would be expected, since each session is independent. The session ID is, generally, just a cookie with a specific value, your browser hands this back with every request, thus associating each request to the session.
So if you logout, and that invalidates the session, then this is to be expected, since each browser/machine has its own session cookie, each one is independent.
This is not the situation for a hijacked session. The original session and the hijacker will both have the same ID. So when you log out, if that invalidates the session properly, then the hijacker is logged out too, even if other sessions are still active.
Of course, this is "in general how it works". Most sites probably follow this model and will work this way. There is nothing to say all sites will. A site could easily correlate sessions and either allow only one session at a time for a user, or any number of things that would make it behave differently.... but usually you will have different sessions in each browser.
-Steve
Why? I don't see the need. I would rather they say it out in the open than behind closed doors.
Frankly, I think this whole issue shows a shameful lack of imagination. Have these people considered that, maybe they should, just this once, stoop to the terrorists level... and put out response videos.
Seriously. We decry terrorists because they use violence as a political tool, however, we are willing to use the threat of legal violence to stop their message from being broadcast. Are words not an improvement over bombs? Why not answer them directly? Video for video. Let the debate be had, and let people decide who they will listen to.
Or...are we to believe that this isn't a debate that we can win? Is the argument for peace and progress really so weak? Are we too proud to admit that we have ever used violence for reasons that were less than honorable?
Or are the politicians, and their employees, too good to debate in the open in the same forum as common people?
The message will be out there, whether you ban it or not. I don't think sticking your head in the sand or shooting the messengers is helpful here.
-Steve
Actually, there have been a few around here the past couple of years.
In fact, here in MA, we have a politician who is in court right now arguing that he doesn't recall being slipped an envelope. Sadly, the FBI informant botched the drop, and the video evidence sucks too, so, he is likely to get off.
A couple of years ago they caught Dianne Wilkerson on camera, taking a bribe envelope and tossing it in her bra. Amusingly, both of these cases.... cash for liquor licenses.
Just follow the money man. Though, these days, the corruption is built right into the system. Even that arizona immigration law. Say what you want about immigration, it was pushed for and written by, a buisness group as part of their business plan to build big new prisons and make money by filling them up. Since they get paid per prisoner per day, and the feds have little incentive or resources to process and deport them.... adding an Arizona law to make the police detain and hold them means.... $$$$ for the prison owners.
30 of the 36 co-sponsors of that bill received donations from prison industry lobbyists within weeks of the bill co-sponsorship. But hey... that is all legal.