It doesn't matter if the struggles FBI had were the fruition of their own stupidity or if the device is just impenetrable for now. They are not entitled to every single bit of evidence out there. They can't have access to conversations in person, destroyed documents and other unrecoverable evidence and yet they can pursue other evidence from other sources to secure a conviction in the courts. If one bad guy goes free, well, though luck, it's a small price to pay for the hundreds of millions of people that will be secure and will have their privacy respected. It's a very small price to pay for the security of journalists, whistleblowers and generally (generally!) awesome people that rely on this privacy and security on a daily basis to do their jobs.
Besides, a criminal will not stop in a single crime and will eventually fail and leave breadcrumbs outside of encryption that can be used by competent law enforcement agents to build a decent case. Humans err. All the time. And again, if one exceptional criminal manages to stay under the radar once you weight this against the security and privacy of hundreds of millions the choice is obvious: preserve encryption as it is and if possible improve it.
The amount of trolling in these articles about SESTA speaks volumes about how bad it is. Remember when SOPA was in full throttle? It was the exact same.
Backpage is being prosecuted without SESTA. Because thei actually committed crimes it seems. We'll only be sure after things settle in the judicial field. Due process (I know you hate it but thankfully you are just some lowly nobody without actual power to change this).
"Where they screwed up was in trying to keep it locked down, proprietary and worst of all, mandatory. I'm sure they made that choice because they thought security through obscurity was both a good idea and sufficient. They wouldn't be the first to make that mistake and they won't be the last."
That's where my question goes. Intel is no newbie, it should have seen how bad it would be if flaws were discovered.
I will risk a prediction: supporters will say "the bill will never be used agains the fine folks at Wikimedia" promptly ignoring many, many, many examples of broad laws being abused even if their initial intentions were good.
At least we can agree that the intention of stopping sex trafficking is a good intention. And we can also agree that the road to hell is paved by those same good intentions. Can we?
Hmmm, I think the article is pretty much in line with my thoughts. However, while privacy and the excesses in name of ad revenue are bad enough, this ad-revenue-craze is causing anti-competitive behavior in the dominant players that could be addressed. What comes to mind right now is how Google tries to force new products by leveraging their dominance on others (Buzz and G+ come to mind right now). It would be nice to have some mechanism to prevent such behavior but alas it's better not having anything than getting some bullshit regulation in this specific issue I guess.
If it was a subscription based system then it would make more sense and it should not be expensive but if you paid full, 1-time price for it then it should work until it breaks. If online connectivity is absolutely needed then let private servers be used. Or don't sell at all.
It's clearly another example on how the private sector can't adhere to good practices by itself and needs to be regulated.
AMD also uses such things to manage their stuff as far as I know but at the very least there isn't indications it has this level o bullshit (network that can't be managed by the front system, really?).
Aha, I like it. Racism needs to become ugly and costly to be driven to the same position black people enjoyed for the largest part of the last few centuries. Ahem.
Ah, how simple and rosy the world is to you. Sometimes I kind of envy you and then I remember you'll be in for a rude awakening at some point if everything goes how you preach. Anyway.
Your comment can be summarized as: fuck the small players, let everybody bear the costs of added moderation efforts, be them economic, social or psychological. So, yeah, it is pretty simple.
As for the axe, don't play dumb. I'll replicate what was said in another comment:
I'm not going to be the bad guy but I will say that my respect for the laws have been severely crippled. When there are different courts whether you have tons of money or not, laws are selectively enforced or are bought by economic powers (ie: copyright) then why should I respect them? It's not that I or the people who are thinking alike are bad persons that want to disrespect the laws. It's the laws that are disrespecting us all, including those who are blind to the problems.
On the post: Sen. Feinstein Looking To Revive Anti-Encryption Bill In The Wake Of Texas Church Shooting
Besides, a criminal will not stop in a single crime and will eventually fail and leave breadcrumbs outside of encryption that can be used by competent law enforcement agents to build a decent case. Humans err. All the time. And again, if one exceptional criminal manages to stay under the radar once you weight this against the security and privacy of hundreds of millions the choice is obvious: preserve encryption as it is and if possible improve it.
On the post: Wikipedia Warns That SESTA Could Destroy Wikipedia
On the post: Wikipedia Warns That SESTA Could Destroy Wikipedia
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Recent Intel Chipsets Have A Built-In Hidden Computer, Running Minix With A Networking Stack And A Web Server
Re: Re:
That's where my question goes. Intel is no newbie, it should have seen how bad it would be if flaws were discovered.
On the post: Wikipedia Warns That SESTA Could Destroy Wikipedia
At least we can agree that the intention of stopping sex trafficking is a good intention. And we can also agree that the road to hell is paved by those same good intentions. Can we?
On the post: Dear Al Franken: Net Neutrality Is Not A Magic Wand You Can Wave At Any Company
On the post: Logitech Once Again Shows That In The Modern Era, You Don't Really Own What You Buy
It's clearly another example on how the private sector can't adhere to good practices by itself and needs to be regulated.
On the post: Algorithmic Videos Are Making YouTube Unsuitable For Young Children, And Google's 'Revenue Architecture' Is To Blame
And then they get angry when we use adblockers and content filters...
On the post: Recent Intel Chipsets Have A Built-In Hidden Computer, Running Minix With A Networking Stack And A Web Server
AMD also uses such things to manage their stuff as far as I know but at the very least there isn't indications it has this level o bullshit (network that can't be managed by the front system, really?).
Wtf was Intel thinking?
On the post: Deputy Shoots Family's Terrier; Complains About Cost Of The Bullet
Re: Re:
On the post: Colorado Voters Shoot Down Comcast's Shitty, Protectionist State Broadband Law
On the post: Miami City Attorney Tries To Erase Photos Of Fired Firefighters From The Internet
Still taking swings at the 1st?
On the post: Dear Senators Portman & Blumenthal: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Re: Re: Re: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Thanks for proving my point.
Go ahead, keep focusing on small, specific points. Ignore the myriad of lawsuits showing that "knowingly" is very far from simple.
It must be wonderful to live in ignorance :)
On the post: Dear Senators Portman & Blumenthal: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, how simple and rosy the world is to you. Sometimes I kind of envy you and then I remember you'll be in for a rude awakening at some point if everything goes how you preach. Anyway.
Your comment can be summarized as: fuck the small players, let everybody bear the costs of added moderation efforts, be them economic, social or psychological. So, yeah, it is pretty simple.
As for the axe, don't play dumb. I'll replicate what was said in another comment:
"The Patriot Act continues to wreak its havoc on civil liberties. Section 213 was included in the Patriot Act over the protests of privacy advocates and granted law enforcement the power to conduct a search while delaying notice to the suspect of the search. Known as a “sneak and peek” warrant, law enforcement was adamant Section 213 was needed to protect against terrorism. But the latest government report detailing the numbers of “sneak and peek” warrants reveals that out of a total of over 11,000 sneak and peek requests, only 51 were used for terrorism. Yet again, terrorism concerns appear to be trampling our civil liberties."
There are loopholes that WILL be abused. I don't expect your simple, idiotic mind to grasp this but it's always worth pointing out.
On the post: Disney Bans LA Times Writers From Advance Screenings In Response To Negative Articles
Re: Re: I too was banned for negative reviews!
On the post: Disney Bans LA Times Writers From Advance Screenings In Response To Negative Articles
Re: I too was banned for negative reviews!
On the post: DOJ Finally Drops Case Against Protester Who Laughed During Jeff Sessions' Confirmation Hearing
On the post: Dear Senators Portman & Blumenthal: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Re: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
That you obsess over like some sadistic fetish?
As always, your ignorance flows like the apocalypse floodings. Let us ignore selective enforcement of broad worded laws, right?
On the post: Dear Senators Portman & Blumenthal: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Senators Portman & Blumenthal: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Re:
Next >>