If you go to an office building, phone a friend who is a current employee at the business housed within said building, ask for and receive an electronic door lock PIN to gain facilities access, and stroll around inside taking pictures of the interior, can your activities be held as criminal trespass? -PCP
I dated a sysadmin and we didn't even share passwords to our home computers, or ask to/let each other use work laptops. Not even "just for a minute."
Password security shows respect, trust.
Which is deeper trust: "I trust you not to hurt me" or "I trust you not to put me in a position where I have to trust you not to hurt me?"
I'll go with the latter one.
Or as my mother taught me regarding financial risk, "Trust is knowing you won't be left out on a limb without the proper paperwork in the first place."
But none of that even matters in this case, because it was the employer who held the prerogative to grant a password permission, or not. The person who "shared" the password was not the owner of the system, there is no actual legit "sharing" there. It is just using a false credential, after having received it from "a person on the inside."
I did, above, in the comment you replied to without reading.
You didn't even read my criticism carefully enough to find out that I accused of having not put any effort into understanding what I said, as evidenced by the very, very short time frame between my response, and your counter-response. To put it in perspective, I spent more time composing the comment than you spent with both reading it and replying to it. And so it is no surprise that you didn't understand it. If that makes you an idiot or not is up to you, I don't have a stake in it. But I'm not going to re-explain that which is still available above for perusal. It was explained the first time, and it is a mainstream point when discussing freedoms; many freedoms have to balanced against opposing freedoms. Where does the imagined freedom "not being spied upon" end and "you can record whatever you want in public" begin? All of that is clear in the first place. I even used public photography as an example, which pulls all those implications in if you're paying attention. If you got an email notification of a response on slashdot and came running in the door banging on a keyboard as fast as you can to reply, then it makes sense you would miss... whatever detail was in the comment.
Their development efforts seen to have turned into 90s microsoft, with just too many developers to actually get anything that works out the door. Most of what they ship now consists of new features that are full of security holes, removal of old features, and constant thrashing of the code that reduces quality and causes things like, "now your configurable toolbars are no longer all configurable; some are, some are not."
You did, you just didn't think it through far enough to see that as a consequence.
I replied 2 days later. You replied to my reply within a minute or two. Maybe you have email notification turned on and were just a bit too quick to give an insta-reply? This isn't twitter, maybe think about it for a few minutes next time, at least long enough to comprehend what was said.
You didn't understand me, as shown by your reply, so how can you disagree? You can't!
I feel like, if somebody proposes a freedom that doesn't exist, then balancing it with other freedoms will reduce the freedoms I'm actually supposed to have.
How would important freedoms like the right to take photographs in public places survive your additional "right?" I don't think it is obvious at all that you would be able to add that right without taking away real rights that already exist.
It certainly isn't a right that comes from the Constitution, though the ones it would have to push aside certainly do.
uhhh... it solved the problem, so your comment lacks a point.
Fear is the mind-killer. Don't be so afraid! You're willing to give your Freedom away to the criminals, that is pathetic. No, people kept riding the buses but they demanded some basic security steps, and those steps worked.
I agree. Until it is full-featured, I'd much rather have emergency driver alert features than to let the computer mess with the steering. I'd enjoy a cruise control system that could make small speed adjustments based on the car in front, but I don't want it to steer for me if I'm still supposed to be steering. But when it is ready to do the whole task, yeah, I'd rather read a book during the trip.
The other people are just a bunch of talking apes. Moralizing isn't going to protect you. It can be the robbers fault they tried to rob him, and also his fault that he made it easier than it needed to be.
When I go out in the woods, I don't worry about if the wildlife would be at fault if it attacked me; I worry about what my surroundings are, what the dangers are, and what sensible precautions I should take. Same in the urban jungle. They're all talking apes, except the robots.
My experience on public transit is that if you drop your phone, somebody will tell you, but if you drop it in the grocery store people just pretend they didn't see anything.
Sorry, "no TV guy" here, and I also block internet ads and don't listen to commercial radio, so can you fill you me in: Did that actually happen? The print media gives me the impression that it was a "beta" feature that is available, but isn't yet used in the marketing at all. Is that incorrect?
Obviously there is a lot of potential for owners of the car to misunderstand the feature, even when they have to agree to on-screen warnings before activating it. But is it also advertised in a misleading way to potential buyers of the car?
In those instances where the stupid use of a product would cause injury only to the stupid user, I agree with you.
About 30 years my State passed a mandatory seatbelt law, by voter initiative. When the debate started, the public was strongly against it: "let people decide for themselves!"
Then the argument was made, "When an accident starts, if the driver is wearing a seatbelt they are better able to control the vehicle and prevent crashing into other cars." And public opinion switched to, "OK but lets only require it for the driver."
Then the argument was made, "When an accident happens, passengers not wearing seatbelts become projectiles, and fly forwards into the front seat and disrupt the ability of the driver to maintain control of the vehicle and prevent crashing into other cars."
And then the law passed with strong public support. Almost nobody cared about saving the driver from themselves, but a lot of people supported saving the other people on the road.
The truck driver making an illegal turn would only make him share responsibility. If both drivers make mistakes, then you can't just point to one randomly. The other driver was watching a video, which is illegal. In my State it is criminal to watch a video while driving, it is similar to drunk driving. A drunk driver is usually still responsible for an accident, even if the other party made a technical mistake.
In this case, if it was before a court I think it would come down to: if the driver wasn't watching the video, would he have been able to avoid the accident? If so, then the accident wasn't the truck driver's fault; it was either the Tesla driver's fault, or no-fault.
None of these posers in the Olympics is moving as fast as I was just sitting in an airplane. They don't even go as fast as I was going in my car this morning!
Who is this idiot who said, "computers cannot outsmart humans?" What was his point? Maybe instead of being an arguable point, it is just crap. Computers can't even exist without humans. It is like saying, "Airplanes can out-muscle humans." Airplanes are just a tool designed by human engineers. Computers are the same. They don't do anything on their own. They are only an extension of human activity. They literally exist to serve us in some way. Computers can't "outsmart humans" because human engineers get the credit for whatever it is the computer does. Once you understand that, then you can see that in a chess competition, a chess computer is just a bunch of engineers using a performance-enhancing device, and it is about as meaningful to the game as a jet pack is to the Olympic high jump.
You've confused exhibition games with actual championship competitions.
Next they'll worry that the Olympics don't count because none of the sprinters are as fast as an airplane, and catapults can launch a metal ball really far.
These people need to get over themselves; competition is about humans competing with each other, it isn't about humans being The Most Awesome Artifacts In The Universe or whatever. Human runners were never faster than cheetahs.
While I agree with this generally, and I'd rather a terrorist attack now and then to nonsense like the TSA security theatre, or Russian-style surveillance...
In this case I don't really see what "freedom" is lost. I was already in public on the bus. Having a camera on the bus seems a lot more like having a camera in the bank, or at the front counter in a restaurant. I'm clearly getting increased safety in a real way. What freedom does this actually reduce?
Most of the evidence shows that arresting and prosecuting people doesn't have a significant deterrent effect. Most of the deterrent only applies to people with a normal sense of risk aversion; just having fingers pointed at them and being accused of Something Bad is enough to deter them from crime. People willing to commit crimes in the first place are not using the sort of long-term thinking implied by the concept of "deterrent." For example, it has been shown that long and short prison sentences have the same deterrent effect. Criminal focus is on not getting caught, rather than minimizing the legal expose if caught. People who are risk-averse enough to care about that stuff are already not breaking major laws. All that sending people to prison does is punish them, and remove them from society.
The deterrent is caused by the presence of the camera, which means they might get caught very quickly and not have a chance to enjoy the fruits of their effort. The camera deters; the threat of arrest is a greater deterrent than the conviction and sentencing of past perpetrators.
I reviewed it for you since you could only speculate and accuse others of not reading.
You'd be shocked how wrong you are, (there has to be an "intercept" step for it to be wiretapping, and interception doesn't apply to things that are broadcast to the public) but how would you ever know? If you were likely to be willing to actually read it, you'd have read it in the first place instead of just waving your hands and claiming that whatever it says, it must support your claims.
Both state and federal wiretapping laws make no exceptions for "public" or "private" spaces, nor is "expectation of privacy" a relevant facotr as it is with photography.
Yes they do! If the cops want to record what you announce over a PA system, they can do that and it isn't wire-tapping. They may or may not need a warrant, depending on how public it was.
Whereas, if you use a string and a pair of cans, then they have to follow the wiretapping rules because it is a type of low-tech telephone and there is a presumption of privacy. But for example if you use a telephone handset as the mic on your PA, that doesn't make it a telephone or cause wiretapping laws to apply.
Here is the clarifying point in the federal statute:
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person— (i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
That said, it also has to be an "interception" of an electronic or oral communication for the wiretap law to apply. Otherwise it would be under normal warrant rules. Recording at a fixed public location doesn't "intercept" anything; it is only recording things which are obviously already not private. It has to be an otherwise private communication for it to be "intercepted." Just like, if a cop is standing next to you and hears what you say over a telephone, that doesn't violate the wiretapping law; he heard it, but he didn't have to "intercept" it to do so. Where State law requires posting notice of recording, and such notice is indeed posted, then that also argues against any claim that a communication was "intercepted."
Slashdot Mirror
If you go to an office building, phone a friend who is a current employee at the business housed within said building, ask for and receive an electronic door lock PIN to gain facilities access, and stroll around inside taking pictures of the interior, can your activities be held as criminal trespass? -PCP
Yes.
I dated a sysadmin and we didn't even share passwords to our home computers, or ask to/let each other use work laptops. Not even "just for a minute."
Password security shows respect, trust.
Which is deeper trust: "I trust you not to hurt me" or "I trust you not to put me in a position where I have to trust you not to hurt me?"
I'll go with the latter one.
Or as my mother taught me regarding financial risk, "Trust is knowing you won't be left out on a limb without the proper paperwork in the first place."
But none of that even matters in this case, because it was the employer who held the prerogative to grant a password permission, or not. The person who "shared" the password was not the owner of the system, there is no actual legit "sharing" there. It is just using a false credential, after having received it from "a person on the inside."
I did, above, in the comment you replied to without reading.
You didn't even read my criticism carefully enough to find out that I accused of having not put any effort into understanding what I said, as evidenced by the very, very short time frame between my response, and your counter-response. To put it in perspective, I spent more time composing the comment than you spent with both reading it and replying to it. And so it is no surprise that you didn't understand it. If that makes you an idiot or not is up to you, I don't have a stake in it. But I'm not going to re-explain that which is still available above for perusal. It was explained the first time, and it is a mainstream point when discussing freedoms; many freedoms have to balanced against opposing freedoms. Where does the imagined freedom "not being spied upon" end and "you can record whatever you want in public" begin? All of that is clear in the first place. I even used public photography as an example, which pulls all those implications in if you're paying attention. If you got an email notification of a response on slashdot and came running in the door banging on a keyboard as fast as you can to reply, then it makes sense you would miss... whatever detail was in the comment.
Their development efforts seen to have turned into 90s microsoft, with just too many developers to actually get anything that works out the door. Most of what they ship now consists of new features that are full of security holes, removal of old features, and constant thrashing of the code that reduces quality and causes things like, "now your configurable toolbars are no longer all configurable; some are, some are not."
You did, you just didn't think it through far enough to see that as a consequence.
I replied 2 days later. You replied to my reply within a minute or two. Maybe you have email notification turned on and were just a bit too quick to give an insta-reply? This isn't twitter, maybe think about it for a few minutes next time, at least long enough to comprehend what was said.
You didn't understand me, as shown by your reply, so how can you disagree? You can't!
I feel like, if somebody proposes a freedom that doesn't exist, then balancing it with other freedoms will reduce the freedoms I'm actually supposed to have.
How would important freedoms like the right to take photographs in public places survive your additional "right?" I don't think it is obvious at all that you would be able to add that right without taking away real rights that already exist.
It certainly isn't a right that comes from the Constitution, though the ones it would have to push aside certainly do.
Uh, computers don't have to be in competition with humans for them to "matter." That is daft.
uhhh... it solved the problem, so your comment lacks a point.
Fear is the mind-killer. Don't be so afraid! You're willing to give your Freedom away to the criminals, that is pathetic. No, people kept riding the buses but they demanded some basic security steps, and those steps worked.
I agree. Until it is full-featured, I'd much rather have emergency driver alert features than to let the computer mess with the steering. I'd enjoy a cruise control system that could make small speed adjustments based on the car in front, but I don't want it to steer for me if I'm still supposed to be steering. But when it is ready to do the whole task, yeah, I'd rather read a book during the trip.
The other people are just a bunch of talking apes. Moralizing isn't going to protect you. It can be the robbers fault they tried to rob him, and also his fault that he made it easier than it needed to be.
When I go out in the woods, I don't worry about if the wildlife would be at fault if it attacked me; I worry about what my surroundings are, what the dangers are, and what sensible precautions I should take. Same in the urban jungle. They're all talking apes, except the robots.
My experience on public transit is that if you drop your phone, somebody will tell you, but if you drop it in the grocery store people just pretend they didn't see anything.
And wake up with your phone, wallet, and shoes missing.
Well, the other story right now talks about cameras on buses, so maybe this is the problem that other thing solves?
I'm sure the fact ... marketing it as self-driving
Sorry, "no TV guy" here, and I also block internet ads and don't listen to commercial radio, so can you fill you me in:
Did that actually happen? The print media gives me the impression that it was a "beta" feature that is available, but isn't yet used in the marketing at all. Is that incorrect?
Obviously there is a lot of potential for owners of the car to misunderstand the feature, even when they have to agree to on-screen warnings before activating it. But is it also advertised in a misleading way to potential buyers of the car?
Problem being that a moron capable of killing himself with a self-driving car ...
It wasn't self-driving, he just didn't have his hands on the wheel. Big difference.
I can do the same trick, "look ma, no hands!" It doesn't make it a self-driving car. Neither does fancy cruise control.
In those instances where the stupid use of a product would cause injury only to the stupid user, I agree with you.
About 30 years my State passed a mandatory seatbelt law, by voter initiative. When the debate started, the public was strongly against it: "let people decide for themselves!"
Then the argument was made, "When an accident starts, if the driver is wearing a seatbelt they are better able to control the vehicle and prevent crashing into other cars." And public opinion switched to, "OK but lets only require it for the driver."
Then the argument was made, "When an accident happens, passengers not wearing seatbelts become projectiles, and fly forwards into the front seat and disrupt the ability of the driver to maintain control of the vehicle and prevent crashing into other cars."
And then the law passed with strong public support. Almost nobody cared about saving the driver from themselves, but a lot of people supported saving the other people on the road.
The truck driver making an illegal turn would only make him share responsibility. If both drivers make mistakes, then you can't just point to one randomly. The other driver was watching a video, which is illegal. In my State it is criminal to watch a video while driving, it is similar to drunk driving. A drunk driver is usually still responsible for an accident, even if the other party made a technical mistake.
In this case, if it was before a court I think it would come down to: if the driver wasn't watching the video, would he have been able to avoid the accident? If so, then the accident wasn't the truck driver's fault; it was either the Tesla driver's fault, or no-fault.
None of these posers in the Olympics is moving as fast as I was just sitting in an airplane. They don't even go as fast as I was going in my car this morning!
Who is this idiot who said, "computers cannot outsmart humans?" What was his point? Maybe instead of being an arguable point, it is just crap. Computers can't even exist without humans. It is like saying, "Airplanes can out-muscle humans." Airplanes are just a tool designed by human engineers. Computers are the same. They don't do anything on their own. They are only an extension of human activity. They literally exist to serve us in some way. Computers can't "outsmart humans" because human engineers get the credit for whatever it is the computer does. Once you understand that, then you can see that in a chess competition, a chess computer is just a bunch of engineers using a performance-enhancing device, and it is about as meaningful to the game as a jet pack is to the Olympic high jump.
Magnus Carlsen
You've confused exhibition games with actual championship competitions.
Next they'll worry that the Olympics don't count because none of the sprinters are as fast as an airplane, and catapults can launch a metal ball really far.
These people need to get over themselves; competition is about humans competing with each other, it isn't about humans being The Most Awesome Artifacts In The Universe or whatever. Human runners were never faster than cheetahs.
"If I'm paying a lot of taxes, I must be making a lot of money!" -- The Governator
While I agree with this generally, and I'd rather a terrorist attack now and then to nonsense like the TSA security theatre, or Russian-style surveillance...
In this case I don't really see what "freedom" is lost. I was already in public on the bus. Having a camera on the bus seems a lot more like having a camera in the bank, or at the front counter in a restaurant. I'm clearly getting increased safety in a real way. What freedom does this actually reduce?
Most of the evidence shows that arresting and prosecuting people doesn't have a significant deterrent effect. Most of the deterrent only applies to people with a normal sense of risk aversion; just having fingers pointed at them and being accused of Something Bad is enough to deter them from crime. People willing to commit crimes in the first place are not using the sort of long-term thinking implied by the concept of "deterrent." For example, it has been shown that long and short prison sentences have the same deterrent effect. Criminal focus is on not getting caught, rather than minimizing the legal expose if caught. People who are risk-averse enough to care about that stuff are already not breaking major laws. All that sending people to prison does is punish them, and remove them from society.
The deterrent is caused by the presence of the camera, which means they might get caught very quickly and not have a chance to enjoy the fruits of their effort. The camera deters; the threat of arrest is a greater deterrent than the conviction and sentencing of past perpetrators.
Where does "private" end, and "public" begin?
Where the judge rules it begins and ends, and it will weighed on a case-by-case basis. Same as what every other law means.
I reviewed it for you since you could only speculate and accuse others of not reading.
You'd be shocked how wrong you are, (there has to be an "intercept" step for it to be wiretapping, and interception doesn't apply to things that are broadcast to the public) but how would you ever know? If you were likely to be willing to actually read it, you'd have read it in the first place instead of just waving your hands and claiming that whatever it says, it must support your claims.
Both state and federal wiretapping laws make no exceptions for "public" or "private" spaces, nor is "expectation of privacy" a relevant facotr as it is with photography.
Yes they do! If the cops want to record what you announce over a PA system, they can do that and it isn't wire-tapping. They may or may not need a warrant, depending on how public it was.
Whereas, if you use a string and a pair of cans, then they have to follow the wiretapping rules because it is a type of low-tech telephone and there is a presumption of privacy. But for example if you use a telephone handset as the mic on your PA, that doesn't make it a telephone or cause wiretapping laws to apply.
Here is the clarifying point in the federal statute:
That said, it also has to be an "interception" of an electronic or oral communication for the wiretap law to apply. Otherwise it would be under normal warrant rules. Recording at a fixed public location doesn't "intercept" anything; it is only recording things which are obviously already not private. It has to be an otherwise private communication for it to be "intercepted." Just like, if a cop is standing next to you and hears what you say over a telephone, that doesn't violate the wiretapping law; he heard it, but he didn't have to "intercept" it to do so. Where State law requires posting notice of recording, and such notice is indeed posted, then that also argues against any claim that a communication was "intercepted."
your stupidity predates everything you say
This is what I think every time I see an ape talk. Even the smart ones, most of what they say is total crap.