So does that mean Jon Johansen and his accomplices are in fact criminals for writing and distributing DeCSS and we were wrong in supporting and defending the cause all these years?
That's what code reviews are for. They aren't to berate someone for writing bad code but identifying as a team areas for improvement (of the code, not the developer).
If you notice a lot of repetition, suggest refactoring common code into a function. Suggest renaming poorly named constructs. Code reviews should be a team effort with backing and consensus of the team with a focus on code quality and not any one developer's ability (or lack thereof).
If this software can reliably retrieve keys from arbitrary computers...
It can't retrieve keys from arbitrary computers. There are specific circumstances that need to exist before they can do anything.
If the computer is on, it can potentially read the decrypted key from RAM. The computer must have been first turned on AND the correct passphrase entered to decrypt they they key to decrypt the volumes. If it's turned on but the decryption hasn't been performed yet, they gain nothing. They can't just turn on the computer and expect to crack it.
The other method they mention is reading it from hibernation files if the system is not powered on. However, if the system drive is encrypted they can't get to the hibernation files.
If you shut the machine down when you walk away you are pretty safe. Of course this doesn't prevent anyone determined enough to install a hardware key logger or something...
I have to agree. You first have to be smart enough to get _accepted_ into Princeton before you can drop out of _Princeton_! That alone already reduces the risk factor as compared to say, someone like me. Even then, coming up with and actually cashing in on a billion dollar idea is still very unlikely. I mean, if it was so easy to do, everyone would be doing it and this article wouldn't exist.
Your post (and that article) describe the failures of Scott J. Bloch, not OSC as a whole. Scott J. Bloch, pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of Congress and is no longer the head of OSC. Whether or not his sentence was fair or too light is another discussion.
The point is, he was investigated and prosecuted for his actions. The government takes corruption in its ranks very seriously and the OSC was set up to handle just that. Even those at OSC are not immune to prosecution.
It's called the Office of Special Counsel. The Office of Special Counsel provides "a safe conduit for the receipt and evaluation of whistleblower disclosures from federal employees, former employees, and applicants for federal employment."
The constitution (and in this case specifically, the fourth amendment) outlines the rights of citizens on which the federal government cannot infringe.
It has nothing to do with the prohibition of random psychos* from infringing on citizen's rights. Other laws are in place for that.
* of the citizen variety... i.e. people not acting in an official government capacity.
It's not that simple. I have an 11 year old, 3 year old and 18 month old. The 11 year old is obviously allowed to have such toys. She is required however to make sure they are picked up and stored in her bedroom and has been told that if I find parts laying around that the younger ones could get a hold of I will throw them out without warning or even telling her about it. I have followed through on that many many times.
However, a few months ago when changing my son's diaper, I found he had swallowed and subsequently passed, a silicon button that was part of my daughter's iPod cover. One of these: http://amzn.com/B0086YLNVW Apparently one he saw laying around before I did.
I'm not saying that a ban on this toy is appropriate. I'm certain the packaging is appropriately labeled with age restrictions and warnings. It's just not as simple as "parents who don't read warnings".
Seriously! I get pissed when my kids touch my monitor screen with their sticky fingers. Now if I have to do it my screen is going to be covered in Cheetos dust.
I don't know. It looks like some guy has code that sends uninitialized or null values which to me would invoke undefined behavior and is then bitching about when that behavior changes.
From the thread: We are passing a (possibly uninitialized, or null-valued) variable to the function, in hundreds of places
Sounds to me like this guy has other issues he should be worrying about.
I believe that applies when there IS an expectation of privacy. I most certainly can video tape in public places and unintentionally (or intentionally) record activities of bystanders. If not, no one would be able to have video of their kids on the beach or at an amusement park or video of any other kind of public activity.
Perhaps the universe is in fact curved and 12.7 billion years "across" and we are looking at the formation of the milky way and other local galaxies...
Probably long dead. Since these were the "first" stars/galaxies from the beginning of the universe, they've long since exploded and are now part of the "near by" most recent stars and galaxies we're most familiar with. They are part of us.
Slashdot Mirror
So does that mean Jon Johansen and his accomplices are in fact criminals for writing and distributing DeCSS and we were wrong in supporting and defending the cause all these years?
That's what code reviews are for. They aren't to berate someone for writing bad code but identifying as a team areas for improvement (of the code, not the developer).
If you notice a lot of repetition, suggest refactoring common code into a function. Suggest renaming poorly named constructs. Code reviews should be a team effort with backing and consensus of the team with a focus on code quality and not any one developer's ability (or lack thereof).
It can't retrieve keys from arbitrary computers. There are specific circumstances that need to exist before they can do anything.
If the computer is on, it can potentially read the decrypted key from RAM. The computer must have been first turned on AND the correct passphrase entered to decrypt they they key to decrypt the volumes. If it's turned on but the decryption hasn't been performed yet, they gain nothing. They can't just turn on the computer and expect to crack it.
The other method they mention is reading it from hibernation files if the system is not powered on. However, if the system drive is encrypted they can't get to the hibernation files.
If you shut the machine down when you walk away you are pretty safe. Of course this doesn't prevent anyone determined enough to install a hardware key logger or something...
I have to agree. You first have to be smart enough to get _accepted_ into Princeton before you can drop out of _Princeton_! That alone already reduces the risk factor as compared to say, someone like me. Even then, coming up with and actually cashing in on a billion dollar idea is still very unlikely. I mean, if it was so easy to do, everyone would be doing it and this article wouldn't exist.
Your post (and that article) describe the failures of Scott J. Bloch, not OSC as a whole. Scott J. Bloch, pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of Congress and is no longer the head of OSC. Whether or not his sentence was fair or too light is another discussion.
The point is, he was investigated and prosecuted for his actions. The government takes corruption in its ranks very seriously and the OSC was set up to handle just that. Even those at OSC are not immune to prosecution.
It's called the Office of Special Counsel. The Office of Special Counsel provides "a safe conduit for the receipt and evaluation of whistleblower disclosures from federal employees, former employees, and applicants for federal employment."
The constitution (and in this case specifically, the fourth amendment) outlines the rights of citizens on which the federal government cannot infringe.
It has nothing to do with the prohibition of random psychos* from infringing on citizen's rights. Other laws are in place for that.
* of the citizen variety... i.e. people not acting in an official government capacity.
If you turn to Slashdot for parenting advice, you're a shitty parent.
The "Concern" in the title is that it is made of wood... and therefore may be a witch.
Making the submitters snide comment even dumber.
inf infected files on hard disk
Oh noes!
+1 Irony
I will take death over an 8'x6' room.
That's the size of my cubicle you insensitive CLOD!
I've been lucky enough to have seen all the Star Wars movies when they were first released in the theater...
Get off my lawn!
You forgot to include your "~" at the end of your comment.
It's not that simple. I have an 11 year old, 3 year old and 18 month old. The 11 year old is obviously allowed to have such toys. She is required however to make sure they are picked up and stored in her bedroom and has been told that if I find parts laying around that the younger ones could get a hold of I will throw them out without warning or even telling her about it. I have followed through on that many many times.
However, a few months ago when changing my son's diaper, I found he had swallowed and subsequently passed, a silicon button that was part of my daughter's iPod cover. One of these: http://amzn.com/B0086YLNVW Apparently one he saw laying around before I did.
I'm not saying that a ban on this toy is appropriate. I'm certain the packaging is appropriately labeled with age restrictions and warnings. It's just not as simple as "parents who don't read warnings".
Seriously! I get pissed when my kids touch my monitor screen with their sticky fingers. Now if I have to do it my screen is going to be covered in Cheetos dust.
If the submitter is doing anything with uninitialized variables he doesn't have any room to complain about other people's code.
I don't know. It looks like some guy has code that sends uninitialized or null values which to me would invoke undefined behavior and is then bitching about when that behavior changes.
From the thread: We are passing a (possibly uninitialized, or null-valued) variable to the function, in hundreds of places
Sounds to me like this guy has other issues he should be worrying about.
Ok, I had to read it twice but yes... the lawyer for one of the defendants in the New Bedford case is Mr. Camera.
I believe that applies when there IS an expectation of privacy. I most certainly can video tape in public places and unintentionally (or intentionally) record activities of bystanders. If not, no one would be able to have video of their kids on the beach or at an amusement park or video of any other kind of public activity.
Perhaps the universe is in fact curved and 12.7 billion years "across" and we are looking at the formation of the milky way and other local galaxies...
Probably long dead. Since these were the "first" stars/galaxies from the beginning of the universe, they've long since exploded and are now part of the "near by" most recent stars and galaxies we're most familiar with. They are part of us.
Except Clinton wasn't impeached for hooking up with an intern. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury about it.
I don't go into the woods too often but there's a pretty fat squirrel lounging under our bird feeder in the back yard...