Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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: Let's Cut Through The Crap (Score 2) 147

by Jane Q. Public (#49185527) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills
Following is the relevant text of the actual bill:

=======
The Administrator shall not propose, finalize,
or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and
technical information relied on to support such covered ac-
tion is--
(A) specifically identified; and
(B) publicly available online in a manner that
is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction of research results.
(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as
requiring the public dissemination of information the dis-
closure of which is prohibited by law.

=======

It does not say personal or medical details. It says "sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction".

There is NOTHING sinister or unreasonable about this, except apparently in the imagination of alarmists.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1, Informative) 147

by Jane Q. Public (#49185469) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

If its a reaching non-issue Why would the backers of the bill suggest study participants can sign waivers or opt out? Why aren't they just fixing the bill to exclude that interpretation?

That isn't in the bill itself. That's what one person said in response to Morganstein's stated opinion about the bill.

The law is not subject either to Morganstein's interpretation, or what a single Representative said about it. That idea has been solidly settled by the Supreme Court.

400-year-old Common Law, still in effect in this country, says that the meaning of the law rests on one thing: what a reasonable person would conclude Congress intended when passing the law. That's why, for example, they have debates about bills in Congress.

I hardly think a reasonable person would conclude that study subjects could not be anonymous. That's an extreme interpretation, not a reasonable one.

And also as I stated up above: that's why the Court challenge to Obamacare is not about "4 words". It's about what Congress intended when passing the bill. There is A LOT more evidence of Congress' actual intent than just those 4 words.

Comment: Re:The Republicans are right (Score 1) 147

by Jane Q. Public (#49185405) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Are you completely sure it's bullshit? Are you certain that no group impacted by a ruling will not use every possible way of undermining a negative result, valid or otherwise? Have you so little imagination?

Just look at the news today. Republicans are using four words in Obamacare to remove healthcare subsidies for 15 million people.

Yep. Bullshit, and bullshit.

The law must be enforced as read by reasonable people. That is a principle that goes back over 400 years in our legal history. No reasonable person would interpret the law that way. You can't read it any which bizarre way you see fit and say that's what the law means.

As for Obamacare, that's pure propaganda. It isn't "just 4 words". It's what Congress INTENDED in writing the law (just as I wrote above) which rules the day. And there are far, far more than 4 words about this in the Congressional record. It is very clear that the sponsors of the bill, and the debate surrounding the bill, intended any subsidies to be distributed ONLY via State exchanges.

If you read the debates and the emails, it's more like 4000 words, and they all say the same thing.

Comment: Re:Science vs Belief. (Score 1) 147

by Jane Q. Public (#49185365) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

You can read Morganstein's full letter here. [PDF alert]

I read Morganstein's letter. I will repeat what I wrote above: what the bill calls for to be publicly available is the science (i.e. the methodology) and the data. Personal details are not part of the data!!! Those are administrative details.

Just as Morganstein says, simply stripping names is not always enough to de-personalize data. But other methods are easily available.

This is a non-issue.

Comment: Re:Science vs Belief. (Score 2) 147

by Jane Q. Public (#49185343) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

To meet the strict letter of the law, the EPA must publish my SSN, DOB, and medical history, or they can't use the study.

Please show us exactly where it says this.

In a medical study, your SSN, DOB, and (non-anonymized) medical information are not data. In fact they are mostly irrelevant to the actual DATA of the study. Your approximate DOB may be important, and your medical history (and I very highly doubt they would require a complete medical history) might be relevant, but your name or SSN? Fucking hardly.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 2) 147

by Jane Q. Public (#49185319) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

From the full article, the law as written, would bar the EPA from using any studies involving confidential patient information unless they were made public.

This is really reaching, by anybody's standards. I read the article, and Morganstein's letter.

The language of the bill calls for "publicly available science". It does not say that the subjects of any studies cannot be kept confidential. That's just malarkey.

As I wrote above: such studies or surveys, by their very nature, are presumed to be repeatable. The idea is that anyone else who conducted such a study, with a similar but separate sample of individuals, would come up with the same results. After all: that's what the studies are for.

To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't anywhere say that study subjects cannot be anonymous. The only thing that can't be anonymous or secret are the authors and their methodologies.

I don't mind honest debate about the issue, but the idea that the statement "publicly available" could reasonably apply to study subjects is a pretty long and thin stretch of the imagination.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 2, Insightful) 147

by Jane Q. Public (#49185263) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills
What's also not common sense is that this would keep EPA from using health studies from confidential sources. By their very nature, such studies are presumed to be repeatable; if not, then the researcher(s) are using questionable statistical methods at best. Like biased sampling methods, for example.

There is nothing in there that would preclude using decent studies which used non-controversial methodology. Whether the subjects of the studies remain confidential, or not.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1, Interesting) 147

by Jane Q. Public (#49185239) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

The obvious target is to tie up all EPA regulations until courts have confirmed the reproducibility of the data used to base the decision on. It will fall to the EPA to prove their data is reproducible by someone who wishes to not reproduce it. Everything else would be illegal.

The language of the bill is very clear. It is intended to do what it says: make sure our regulatory bodies (employees of The People) are making their decisions based on publicly available, sound science.

Why should they be able to keep their "science" secret, as they have? That's obviously a non-starter. Especially when they're attempting to shove the most expensive regulations in history off on the public.

Comment: Re:Photos being separated (Score 1) 145

by Jane Q. Public (#49178639) Attached to: Google+ Divided Into Photos and Streams, With New Boss

The insult is the implication that no one uses Google+, thus only nobodies would actually be there.

And when did I imply any such thing? I'm think you read more into my comment than I actually wrote.

What I did write, was that there are obviously fewer comments on YouTube as a result of that action.

Comment: Re:*sighs* (Score 1) 150

by Jane Q. Public (#49178627) Attached to: AVG Announces Invisibility Glasses
My point was that IF they were being used to dazzle IR cameras, they're pointless because IR cameras wouldn't see your face behind the glasses anyway. They might recognize A face, but not YOUR face.

Also, not mentioned earlier but just as cogent: IR blasters wouldn't work on most halfway decent cameras anyway, because they have IR filters on them... precisely because IR messes up the exposure.

Comment: Re:Krebs (Score 2) 230

He reported it AFTER exploring it en mass, and while his motives *may* have been pure... the degree he went to can and were used to harm him.

Contrary to what was reported from many sources, he DID go to them first, before publishing the exploit. The fault for not fixing it immediately rests on them, not him.

What he did was normal curiosity. Hell, I've done it. In fact I don't know of any web or security professionals who haven't. Got an ID in the URL? Increment it by one, see what happens. We all do it.

Granted, we don't normally explore it to the degree he did. But what he did was ridiculously simple, and hardly even deserves the term "hacking" at all. What THEY did was akin to leaving the back gate open and putting out a sign that says "Come on in!", then complaining about it when someone did.

Anyway, I'll repeat what I said about my own experience: I didn't need to go "fishing" for information in that case. It was being sent TO ME, just in a non-obvious way. I stumbled across it, I didn't go looking for it or trying to exploit it. I sure could have, though.

Comment: Re:Photos being separated (Score 1) 145

by Jane Q. Public (#49168013) Attached to: Google+ Divided Into Photos and Streams, With New Boss

Now if you seem to be insulted by my saying thing, think how the Google+ users feel insulted by what you say.

Why should I be insulted? You do as you please. I don't particularly care one way or the other.

Also, why should anybody else be insulted just because I don't want to use Google+??? I mean, I didn't even say why. I just didn't want to.

The moon is a planet just like the Earth, only it is even deader.

Working...