Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Fifth amendment zone of lawlessness (Score 4, Insightful) 431

by Githaron (#48925575) Attached to: Justice Department: Default Encryption Has Created a 'Zone of Lawlessness'

Once you put information into anything except your own head, it's fair game for a subpoena or search warrant. Period. Encryption doesn't matter. You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you. They just unlock the evidence that already exists.

Providing the password to potential evidence that is encrypted is self-incrimination.

Let's say the justice system believes you are a drug trafficker. They believe you have drugs stashed somewhere in your house. With a warrant, they try and try but they just can't find your stash. Under the Fifth Amendment, they cannot force you to tell them where the stash is.

Encryption is the same way. The encrypted container is the house; the evidence within that container is the drugs; and providing the password is the equivalent to telling them where the drugs are.

If we pretend the self-incrimination part of the Fifth Amendment didn't exist, there are a lot of other issues.

What if the evidence doesn't actually exist? What if what they believe is a encrypted container is actually a corrupt file or random noise? If the evidence does exist, what if the accused does not remember the details either by amnesia or simple forgetfulness? What if the acccused never had the password to begin with or use encrypted keys that no longer exist? Yes, the accused could be lying but how are you going to prove they are?

Comment: Re:It's amazing (Score 3) 199

by Githaron (#47816205) Attached to: First US Appeals Court Hears Arguments To Shut Down NSA Database
The constitution was never meant to be imutable; it was meant to be supreme. Because it is supposed to be supreme, the rules for modifying are much greater than the rules for creating/modifying lesser laws. The problem is that many of the government's parts do not want to treat it as supreme because it is so hard to modify. They would rather do what they think they can get away with constitutional or not.

Comment: Re:He continues to show himself to be ... (Score 1) 230

by Githaron (#47196873) Attached to: Musk Will Open Up Tesla Supercharger Patents To Spur Development

well, smart is relative. This shows him to be pro society. From a stock holder perspective. it's a very dumb move.

Not sure you second statement is true. By opening the patents of his super charging systems, it encourages other parties to put up more stations. This would make Teslas more enticing to prospective buyers. Sometimes, pro-society and pro-profit are not mutally exclusive.

Comment: Re:This is awesome (Score 0) 217

by Githaron (#47172105) Attached to: New OpenSSL Man-in-the-Middle Flaw Affects All Clients
The point is that if a flaw exists, when found, it can be quickly fixed in open source. You can also do your own security audit on open source software if you are really security conscious. With closed source, you have to wait for the vendor to both find and fix it (if they ever do). That said, assuming the vendor is trustworthy and would rather shut down than backdoor their software, heavily auditted close source software could easily be more secure than lightly audited open source software. If the audit levels are the same, open source wins. Part of the problem is that until recently a lot of open source security software/libraries like OpenSSL have not gone though enough auditting and vunerabilities are overlooked.

Comment: Re:This is bullshit. (Score 5, Interesting) 105

I would argue that having any government move to open source is good for everyone. I don't know if it will be cheaper but I do think it will like give the people more bang for their buck. Instead of those dollars going into one person's pockets, they can not only still be used to solve the government's software problems but also provide software libraries and frameworks for other to bulid off of.

Comment: Re:It is God. (Score 1) 293

They are advocating for my destruction, so it's really only rational to advocate for theirs.

Many many Christians are no better than the Taliban in their desire to force the rest of us to follow their rules.

What's funny is that a lot of thiests probably thing the same thing about you.

Comment: Re:It is God. (Score 1) 293

Which is why many species evolved collaboration. Evolution doesn't always mean killing competitors. Some species(particularly humans) do extremely well by turning competitors into collaborators and developing mutually beneficial relationships.

Until the last human dies, the pig species will survive, because we like bacon.

Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.