"Not sure if everything needs encrypting, some expert will tell me shortly."
It depends on the amount of security you want. Before anyone answers "all of it", it must be acknowledged that increased security doesn't come for free. It is paid for in terms of reduced convenience. So, "all of it" is not necessarily the right answer. It all depends.
That said, it's much better to encrypt more than is needed than to encrypt less.
"The only way to mitigate misuse is to limit the data collected to that required to solve crimes and monitor terrorists."
Your use of the word "required" is highly questionable here. I think "desired" is better. With that correction, then I agree. That's why restraining the massive data collection is an excellent thing: to reduce the potential for misuse.
I think you might be thinking of the microwave crowd control devices. That's a little different, in that it works the same way a microwave oven does: it cooks you (just enough to hurt).
In lab studies, you can do even cooler things. For example, when people are exposed to insanely high magnetic fields modulated at the right frequency, people have reported alien abduction experiences and seeing god/jesus. Hallucinations that seem as real as everyday life. When you turn the magnetic field off, the hallucinations end instantly.
These studies have given rise to a hypothesis that there may be a connection between alien abduction & vivid religious manifestations and certain geological events that can generate massive EM fields.
This is an excellent point. I don't live in California, but I reached maximum warning saturation years ago. I don't really pay them any attention at all anymore.
There is nothing wrong with self-signed certs, as long as there is a way to get them that is trustworthy. In fact, self-signed certs are more trustworthy than ones signed by a CA because you're not taking someone else's word for whether or not the cert is trustworthy.
"As for electromagnetic fields, they also do nothing to the human body."
This is not true. You can create fascinating psychological and hallucinatory effects in humans with electromagnetic fields. The catch is that they have to be enormously powerful fields. Many, many orders of magnitude greater than anything your phone could even hope to produce.
I agree. But there's a problem here -- what should us non-cops be called? As others have pointed out in prior stories, "civilian" is egregiously wrong as well.
We probably won't. All of the studies on this, whether they show an adverse effect or not, are in agreement on one thing: whatever effect there may be is very, very tiny. That's why there is a mix of conflicting study conclusions.
I would be thrilled if there were far fewer cars around, and even more thrilled if I didn't have to own one. Unfortunately, at least where I live, there is no reasonable alternative and it doesn't look like there will be one anytime soon.
Federal contractors, however, can use patent rights owned by others without obtaining a license or paying royalties. By statute, the military and other government agencies have the right to use any patented invention to further valid government missions, and this right may be extended to government contractors.
The result is that the unlicensed use of patented inventions by federal contractors may not be illegal, or wrongful, depending on the usage.
"Yes, if you're going to complain about hypothetical government "spying", then I would hope you don't have a Apple or Google account since that would be a tad hypocritical."
Not even slightly. You can voluntarily give some people access to your personal information and refuse to give others the same access without any hypocrisy whatsoever. Please explain how I'm wrong.
But you ignore the big difference: in the case of spying services such as Apple and Google, you are voluntarily giving them data. In the case of the government, you are being forced to.
Equating those two things is extremely deceptive.
"if the government were doing that, THAT IS THEIR JOB."
No, it's not. Not at all.
"It's their job to ensure the safety of its citizens"
To a limited degree, and even to that degree, the job of "keeping us safe" must always be second to the job of "keeping us free". When the government spies on us all, it does neither.
On the post: US CIO Orders All .Gov Websites To Require Encrypted Connections, Amazon Enters The Secure Cert Space
Re: More Encryptio
It depends on the amount of security you want. Before anyone answers "all of it", it must be acknowledged that increased security doesn't come for free. It is paid for in terms of reduced convenience. So, "all of it" is not necessarily the right answer. It all depends.
That said, it's much better to encrypt more than is needed than to encrypt less.
On the post: Privacy International Files Complaint Against GCHQ's Use Of 'Bulk Personal Datasets'
Re:
Your use of the word "required" is highly questionable here. I think "desired" is better. With that correction, then I agree. That's why restraining the massive data collection is an excellent thing: to reduce the potential for misuse.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's with the xkcd chart?
In lab studies, you can do even cooler things. For example, when people are exposed to insanely high magnetic fields modulated at the right frequency, people have reported alien abduction experiences and seeing god/jesus. Hallucinations that seem as real as everyday life. When you turn the magnetic field off, the hallucinations end instantly.
These studies have given rise to a hypothesis that there may be a connection between alien abduction & vivid religious manifestations and certain geological events that can generate massive EM fields.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re:
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Of a mixed mind myself.
On the post: Bell Exec Urges Public To Shame Users Who 'Steal' Netflix Content Via VPNs
I'll shame Turcke instead
On the post: US CIO Orders All .Gov Websites To Require Encrypted Connections, Amazon Enters The Secure Cert Space
Re: And the feds will screw this up
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: What's with the xkcd chart?
This is not true. You can create fascinating psychological and hallucinatory effects in humans with electromagnetic fields. The catch is that they have to be enormously powerful fields. Many, many orders of magnitude greater than anything your phone could even hope to produce.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lawsuit Claims Sheriff's Dept. Perfectly Fine With Arresting Person 70 Lbs. Lighter And Six Inches Shorter Than Suspect Sought
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re:
I can only speak for myself, but to the extent that I am biased, it's because of a serious lack of evidence, not because I prefer a certain answer.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Of a mixed mind myself.
We probably won't. All of the studies on this, whether they show an adverse effect or not, are in agreement on one thing: whatever effect there may be is very, very tiny. That's why there is a mix of conflicting study conclusions.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 28: Is Car Ownership On The Way Out?
Re:
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 28: Is Car Ownership On The Way Out?
I hope so
On the post: Surveillance Tech Company Sues US Government For Patent Infringement
Re: Nothing will come of this
On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not even slightly. You can voluntarily give some people access to your personal information and refuse to give others the same access without any hypocrisy whatsoever. Please explain how I'm wrong.
But you ignore the big difference: in the case of spying services such as Apple and Google, you are voluntarily giving them data. In the case of the government, you are being forced to.
Equating those two things is extremely deceptive.
"if the government were doing that, THAT IS THEIR JOB."
No, it's not. Not at all.
"It's their job to ensure the safety of its citizens"
To a limited degree, and even to that degree, the job of "keeping us safe" must always be second to the job of "keeping us free". When the government spies on us all, it does neither.
On the post: Guy Reveals Airtel Secretly Inserting JavaScript, Gets Threatened With Jail For Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re:
On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is so wrong that I am astounded that anyone could even type it in the first place.
On the post: DailyDirt: That Lucy In The Sky... Is A Diamond
Re: Re:
Next >>