"Wiretapping" is listening to phone calls. Federal law doesn't restrict general recording of information. It is only the local laws that are relevant here.
In my State, the requirement is that they post a sign that says they're recording. And so they post the sign. Done.
A funny story, the local police got a warrant to tap a phone booth, but then after rolling-over the warrant a few times a judge told them that unless they were going to leave it off and only turn it on when a suspect was using the phone, they would have to post the sign. So the cops posted the "attention: audio and video recording equipment in use" sign. The size and shape of a parking sign, with bright blue letters and a drawing of a video camera and microphone. None of the drug dealers using that phone cared, they don't read f-in' signs, signs are just want The Man wants you to think, or whatever. They still managed to bust dozens of people at that phone, until pay phones stopped being a thing. Now they park their fake "Security" truck across the street with a stingray.
You'll really get paranoid after the person sitting behind you who dislikes your snark decides to report it to the FBI, and they come to interview you, leading you to become totally convinced that there is an evil supercomputer listening on the bus. You could fall down a rabbit hole that impacts the rest of your life! lol
The local anarchist group went through some convulsions of that sort, when they were getting "mysteriously" arrested for crimes they didn't expect to get busted for. They were sure it proved some sort of conspiracy against their group. Over time, and trials, it became clear that actually they all just squealed and gave witness statements as soon as they were arrested, and the whole group basically confessed one at a time where they only had one person on something minor to start with.
When I was 14 I made a joke in a restaurant about an arson that was on the local news, and a waitress overhead it... and 2 weeks later, reported it to the FBI. She mistook the date, and so her account had me making the joke the same night it happened, before it was on the news, when actually it was the next day because my group was discussing it after seeing it on the news. It would be easy to get paranoid, but actually it was just an innocent mistake, and it was all cleared up when they interviewed me. But don't think they don't have time to interview lots of idiots. They find the time. It gets them out of the office, and it's easy work.
You don't need to "sweep" for microphones, just look for the pattern of little holes right below the camera.
Start at the sign warning, "Audio and video recording devices in use." Lift your head up, and to the right. See the camera on the ceiling? The mic is right there too. There is another one in the middle of the aisle by the back door.
DHS is just giving cash grants to pay for it, they're not developing anything or pushing locals to use certain software. That's why there are all the idiot problems in NJ; the locals were not competent, and neither were the consultants.
At least slashdot remembered to tell us what Bennett thinks, though! lol No surprise that the blah-blah is uninformed.
Where I am not only is it a loop that is only reviewed if there is an incident, there isn't even central storage or anything; and they can't view it from the bus without special equipment. The security guy has to use some sort of laptop-based tool to collect the data off the bus if there is an incident. It is like the security cameras in a store, but for buses. Audio really helps on buses, because there is a problem of people being verbally abusive to other riders, but there is also the problem that accusations are not always true. So put those together, and you can see the value in managing the service.
More often than being used in court it is used to verify behavior in order to ban the correct people from the service. The video, rather than the audio, is the part that is a threat of evidence collection; people are less likely to try to rob you on the bus if they're on video. Flashers are less likely to strike there, too. These are the real problems on buses, not, "zomg a cop looked at me, I'm like, so totally busted, man I hate pigs." LOL I mean, I'm sure that is on the tapes a million times too, but nobody cares.
I'm in one of the Oregon communities that has had audio/video recording on buses for a decade. It wasn't "the gubermint" or the police who installed it, it was the local transit district. At first it made people nervous, but then over time they realized that it means that if there is a crime on the bus, it is really easy to solve. Also it helps the transit district to ban people who are causing problems for other riders, because they don't have to wonder what happened they can check. No, you can't hear everything everybody says on the bus, or even most of it, but if there is a conflict of some sort it will definitely pick up the loud voices.
If somebody wants the audio or video for purposes other than managing the bus service, they'll need a warrant or other court order.
This is substantially different than when law enforcement is recording stuff without a warrant, because of the ways that it can be used. And, lets be honest, I don't want the person next to me on the bus to think that we're in private; we're not.
A completely new fork of Linux, called something else obviously, and that remains systemd-free...
Now we're getting dreamy! I'd love to see that day. And the ones leaving would love it too, right? Everybody wins!
Now, just teach people who hate systemd how to do all that technical stuff that is required, and we can live in that world. Maybe figure out how to build an IDE as a first-person shooter? I don't think just getting chanting RTFM at the rubber ducky is going to motivate these users to acquire the skills. People who do that eventually end up at the web pages that explain the technical reasons for systemd, and then all the myths crumble.
My main problem with systemd is the philosophy. If it was fully decouplable...
It is. Distro package managers don't want to do that much work, and they don't have a valid use case. "I hate it, waaaaa" isn't a use case. And the haters don't have the ability to scrape together the human resources.
It's also kind of suspicious that the only service manager that D-Bus talks to...
dbus is cross-platform, and it is mainly a replacement for SysV IPC. It works on any *nix, and even on windows.
I thought the anti-systemd line was that it was undesirable to have the init system also do anything else (even though they all do, include SysV init) so why does it make sense to complain about services being started outside of some monolithic service manager? It seems though that there is also some other confusion here. dbus is not intended as an OS component. It is for application IPC. Linux creates multiple buses for OS stuff, but it is just using dbus like an application would. Service activation is for on-demand activation of application services, not OS services. It is supposed to be outside of any sort of service manager by default. It is up to the distro to hook that into whatever service manager would be useful on their system. And only RedHat has done that work, so only systemd has the integration. And considering that systemd replaces SysV init and D-Bus replaces SysV IPC, it seems rather surprising that systemd-haters are complaining about D-Bus not being integrated with SysV. After all, D-Bus exists because SysV is disgusting and vile according to most developers that have a lot of experience with it...
I got the CD (v3.0) glued to a magazine cover, and used it to download the images for a newer release.
By the time software was customarily distributed on CDROM, typical modems were 28.8kbps. 2400 BAUD was late 80s/early 90s. Slackware 3.0, the first version released on CD was in `95. Most stores only sold 14.4 and 28.8 modems in `95.
What bothers me the most, I think, is the incessant whining. Waah, waah, police got me waah waah. You're going to be a martyr, don't be a baby about it. That's what bothered me about Assaunge, what a crybaby he was. Be defiant, tell them they can jail you but never silence you, and wear your prison sentence like a badge of honor. But no, it's always whine, moan, complain. P.U., what a bunch of stinkers.
I grew up on the streets and I totally agree. The whining shows their true mental perspective; they didn't think they were doing the right thing, they thought they wouldn't get caught, and they're so butthurt that they did. It must have been somebody's fault, they couldn't have been caught just because they were knowingly breaking the law and there were already professional police before they started, naturally when combined leading to their arrest and imprisonment. No, that is impossible to consider; it must be simple injustice that leads lawbreakers to end up in jail.
I don't even like the laws they broke. But guess what? I don't expect the police to care either way what I think, or what the politics around the law is. If it is illegal now, and you're doing it anyway, you should be prepared to face the consequences. I mean either face it with head high, or wait until the law is different to do it. Democracy doesn't mean, "everybody does everything their own way," it means we make the rules together. We won't individually like all the rules. So what?
Others want to whine and cry about him being from another country, but don't come to the US and do financial transactions here when the business you're doing is illegal here. The result of exchanging the money here is that your activity was done here and was done under US law and when people talk about the US being some sort of policeman, you should presume that foreigners doing their financial transactions here is monitored. Duh. Make sure they're legal. "Oh gosh, I wasn't paying attention to the financial details" just doesn't cut it. Your accomplices were, and you were writing the code so you knew what was being done; you knew you were paying customers to distribute infringing works, because you were the programmer and were setting up the ability for those payments to happen. Just saying something like, "Golly, I didn't know they were going to actually use the code I wrote for the thing it most obviously does" is just not very convincing.
Here in America, we have a history of breaking the law in protest of a law. And when you do it, you expect to go to jail. That is the whole point. You do it proudly. If you complain nobody sees you as a martyr. They just see you as a whiny criminal.
Manufacturing is often done elsewhere at the prerogative of American companies, it isn't just magically done elsewhere for no reason, or because some other company won a blue ribbon at the UN.
You can hate and wish us ill, but it won't make us ill. Or you rich and healthy.
No, with corporations it works like, if it is civil fraud the victim has to spend the money on lawyers to sue, and they may or may not see very much in the end. Criminal fraud, the government prosecutor does all the work, and the victim gets full restitution plus interest.
- telling her staff to remove classified markings from documents and send them this private email system
See, here you're just making shit up by ignoring the context. The details are well known; the secure system was down, they couldn't get it to work, they needed the documents, and it was their discretion what was more important. There is no actual issue or problem. That's the only example. Everything else is stuff that becomes classified after the fact, because it related to her movements. But it her discretion to protect or reveal her travel plans as necessary for her travel and work to be accomplished. That is just basic stuff.
They might simply have had out of date rules and procedures that interfered with the quality of the system. That seems more likely to me than that they were complete childlike idiots.
All they have to do is use the mark at some point when asking for donations. If they use it in conjunction with soliciting donations, that is trade. Because of the way the activities of non-profits are defined, this means pretty much if they ever use the term, they're using it in trade.
Technicalities might be more technical than just supposing.
Slashdot Mirror
"Wiretapping" is listening to phone calls. Federal law doesn't restrict general recording of information. It is only the local laws that are relevant here.
In my State, the requirement is that they post a sign that says they're recording. And so they post the sign. Done.
A funny story, the local police got a warrant to tap a phone booth, but then after rolling-over the warrant a few times a judge told them that unless they were going to leave it off and only turn it on when a suspect was using the phone, they would have to post the sign. So the cops posted the "attention: audio and video recording equipment in use" sign. The size and shape of a parking sign, with bright blue letters and a drawing of a video camera and microphone. None of the drug dealers using that phone cared, they don't read f-in' signs, signs are just want The Man wants you to think, or whatever. They still managed to bust dozens of people at that phone, until pay phones stopped being a thing. Now they park their fake "Security" truck across the street with a stingray.
You'll really get paranoid after the person sitting behind you who dislikes your snark decides to report it to the FBI, and they come to interview you, leading you to become totally convinced that there is an evil supercomputer listening on the bus. You could fall down a rabbit hole that impacts the rest of your life! lol
The local anarchist group went through some convulsions of that sort, when they were getting "mysteriously" arrested for crimes they didn't expect to get busted for. They were sure it proved some sort of conspiracy against their group. Over time, and trials, it became clear that actually they all just squealed and gave witness statements as soon as they were arrested, and the whole group basically confessed one at a time where they only had one person on something minor to start with.
When I was 14 I made a joke in a restaurant about an arson that was on the local news, and a waitress overhead it... and 2 weeks later, reported it to the FBI. She mistook the date, and so her account had me making the joke the same night it happened, before it was on the news, when actually it was the next day because my group was discussing it after seeing it on the news. It would be easy to get paranoid, but actually it was just an innocent mistake, and it was all cleared up when they interviewed me. But don't think they don't have time to interview lots of idiots. They find the time. It gets them out of the office, and it's easy work.
I presumed they were being identified by how much their air they displaced; volume combined with speed and drag effects.
You don't need to "sweep" for microphones, just look for the pattern of little holes right below the camera.
Start at the sign warning, "Audio and video recording devices in use." Lift your head up, and to the right. See the camera on the ceiling? The mic is right there too. There is another one in the middle of the aisle by the back door.
they have never sent goons on the bus to club a slob who drops orange peels and potato chips all over the bus.
But it would probably be a popular action if they did!
What I want is microphones all over the mountains so they can club those jerks who use their cell phone as a boom box while hiking.
DHS is just giving cash grants to pay for it, they're not developing anything or pushing locals to use certain software. That's why there are all the idiot problems in NJ; the locals were not competent, and neither were the consultants.
At least slashdot remembered to tell us what Bennett thinks, though! lol No surprise that the blah-blah is uninformed.
Where I am not only is it a loop that is only reviewed if there is an incident, there isn't even central storage or anything; and they can't view it from the bus without special equipment. The security guy has to use some sort of laptop-based tool to collect the data off the bus if there is an incident. It is like the security cameras in a store, but for buses. Audio really helps on buses, because there is a problem of people being verbally abusive to other riders, but there is also the problem that accusations are not always true. So put those together, and you can see the value in managing the service.
More often than being used in court it is used to verify behavior in order to ban the correct people from the service. The video, rather than the audio, is the part that is a threat of evidence collection; people are less likely to try to rob you on the bus if they're on video. Flashers are less likely to strike there, too. These are the real problems on buses, not, "zomg a cop looked at me, I'm like, so totally busted, man I hate pigs." LOL I mean, I'm sure that is on the tapes a million times too, but nobody cares.
I'm in one of the Oregon communities that has had audio/video recording on buses for a decade. It wasn't "the gubermint" or the police who installed it, it was the local transit district. At first it made people nervous, but then over time they realized that it means that if there is a crime on the bus, it is really easy to solve. Also it helps the transit district to ban people who are causing problems for other riders, because they don't have to wonder what happened they can check. No, you can't hear everything everybody says on the bus, or even most of it, but if there is a conflict of some sort it will definitely pick up the loud voices.
If somebody wants the audio or video for purposes other than managing the bus service, they'll need a warrant or other court order.
This is substantially different than when law enforcement is recording stuff without a warrant, because of the ways that it can be used. And, lets be honest, I don't want the person next to me on the bus to think that we're in private; we're not.
A completely new fork of Linux, called something else obviously, and that remains systemd-free...
Now we're getting dreamy! I'd love to see that day. And the ones leaving would love it too, right? Everybody wins!
Now, just teach people who hate systemd how to do all that technical stuff that is required, and we can live in that world. Maybe figure out how to build an IDE as a first-person shooter? I don't think just getting chanting RTFM at the rubber ducky is going to motivate these users to acquire the skills. People who do that eventually end up at the web pages that explain the technical reasons for systemd, and then all the myths crumble.
My main problem with systemd is the philosophy. If it was fully decouplable...
It is. Distro package managers don't want to do that much work, and they don't have a valid use case. "I hate it, waaaaa" isn't a use case. And the haters don't have the ability to scrape together the human resources.
It's also kind of suspicious that the only service manager that D-Bus talks to...
dbus is cross-platform, and it is mainly a replacement for SysV IPC. It works on any *nix, and even on windows.
I thought the anti-systemd line was that it was undesirable to have the init system also do anything else (even though they all do, include SysV init) so why does it make sense to complain about services being started outside of some monolithic service manager? It seems though that there is also some other confusion here. dbus is not intended as an OS component. It is for application IPC. Linux creates multiple buses for OS stuff, but it is just using dbus like an application would. Service activation is for on-demand activation of application services, not OS services. It is supposed to be outside of any sort of service manager by default. It is up to the distro to hook that into whatever service manager would be useful on their system. And only RedHat has done that work, so only systemd has the integration. And considering that systemd replaces SysV init and D-Bus replaces SysV IPC, it seems rather surprising that systemd-haters are complaining about D-Bus not being integrated with SysV. After all, D-Bus exists because SysV is disgusting and vile according to most developers that have a lot of experience with it...
I got the CD (v3.0) glued to a magazine cover, and used it to download the images for a newer release.
By the time software was customarily distributed on CDROM, typical modems were 28.8kbps. 2400 BAUD was late 80s/early 90s. Slackware 3.0, the first version released on CD was in `95. Most stores only sold 14.4 and 28.8 modems in `95.
Downloading v3.5 still took 3 days.
No, your assertions are simply wrong. Made-up. Talk about your own culture, or listen about mine; don't dictate my culture to me from presumption.
What bothers me the most, I think, is the incessant whining. Waah, waah, police got me waah waah. You're going to be a martyr, don't be a baby about it. That's what bothered me about Assaunge, what a crybaby he was. Be defiant, tell them they can jail you but never silence you, and wear your prison sentence like a badge of honor. But no, it's always whine, moan, complain. P.U., what a bunch of stinkers.
I grew up on the streets and I totally agree. The whining shows their true mental perspective; they didn't think they were doing the right thing, they thought they wouldn't get caught, and they're so butthurt that they did. It must have been somebody's fault, they couldn't have been caught just because they were knowingly breaking the law and there were already professional police before they started, naturally when combined leading to their arrest and imprisonment. No, that is impossible to consider; it must be simple injustice that leads lawbreakers to end up in jail.
I don't even like the laws they broke. But guess what? I don't expect the police to care either way what I think, or what the politics around the law is. If it is illegal now, and you're doing it anyway, you should be prepared to face the consequences. I mean either face it with head high, or wait until the law is different to do it. Democracy doesn't mean, "everybody does everything their own way," it means we make the rules together. We won't individually like all the rules. So what?
Others want to whine and cry about him being from another country, but don't come to the US and do financial transactions here when the business you're doing is illegal here. The result of exchanging the money here is that your activity was done here and was done under US law and when people talk about the US being some sort of policeman, you should presume that foreigners doing their financial transactions here is monitored. Duh. Make sure they're legal. "Oh gosh, I wasn't paying attention to the financial details" just doesn't cut it. Your accomplices were, and you were writing the code so you knew what was being done; you knew you were paying customers to distribute infringing works, because you were the programmer and were setting up the ability for those payments to happen. Just saying something like, "Golly, I didn't know they were going to actually use the code I wrote for the thing it most obviously does" is just not very convincing.
Here in America, we have a history of breaking the law in protest of a law. And when you do it, you expect to go to jail. That is the whole point. You do it proudly. If you complain nobody sees you as a martyr. They just see you as a whiny criminal.
Manufacturing is often done elsewhere at the prerogative of American companies, it isn't just magically done elsewhere for no reason, or because some other company won a blue ribbon at the UN.
You can hate and wish us ill, but it won't make us ill. Or you rich and healthy.
It used to be that the airline would call
lol good one cowherd
No, with corporations it works like, if it is civil fraud the victim has to spend the money on lawyers to sue, and they may or may not see very much in the end. Criminal fraud, the government prosecutor does all the work, and the victim gets full restitution plus interest.
How secure that would be in practice depends almost entirely on the modem configuration.
They don't need to read minds, all it takes is a little AM radio and they'll provide the mind reader.
- telling her staff to remove classified markings from documents and send them this private email system
See, here you're just making shit up by ignoring the context. The details are well known; the secure system was down, they couldn't get it to work, they needed the documents, and it was their discretion what was more important. There is no actual issue or problem. That's the only example. Everything else is stuff that becomes classified after the fact, because it related to her movements. But it her discretion to protect or reveal her travel plans as necessary for her travel and work to be accomplished. That is just basic stuff.
It apparently all boils down to the dream-world of politicians only carrying one device. Just carry two devices. People are learning.
It is understandable not to want private emails to get released.
They might simply have had out of date rules and procedures that interfered with the quality of the system. That seems more likely to me than that they were complete childlike idiots.
We did go to see The Hobbit.
I haven't watched one of those shows since they took "3's company" off the air.
I did watch 5 minutes of M*A*S*H while changing between local weather and PBS.
Sorry, new sprout, you're still green behind the ears. I can look at your user id and see you were born, well, not yesterday, but recently.
All they have to do is use the mark at some point when asking for donations. If they use it in conjunction with soliciting donations, that is trade. Because of the way the activities of non-profits are defined, this means pretty much if they ever use the term, they're using it in trade.
Technicalities might be more technical than just supposing.