Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:not sure (Score 2) 450

by J053 (#40159139) Attached to: Windows 8: More EULA, Fewer Rights.

According to USA Today, NY Times, and other papers that performed independent ballot counts (using multiple methods), it would not have mattered if the SCOTUS had allowed Florida to continue counting. Bush beat Gore by ~1000 votes, mainly because of the western republican counties. Therefore Bush would have had FL's electoral votes and won.

Actually, it was mainly because Jeb Bush (Florida governor and GWB's brother) and Kathleen Harris (Florida Secretary of State - in charge of voting - and GWB's Florida campaign manager) purged over 180,000 people from the voter rolls just before the election - supposedly for being convicted felons. Turns out that these voters were predominately black or hispanic, and most of them turned out not to have been felons (some misdemeanor convictions, but you don't lose the right to vote for that).

Comment: Re:Building Codes (Score 1) 223

by J053 (#39419779) Attached to: Liberating the Laws You Must Pay To Read
Not only that, but these building codes are often incorporated wholesale into local codes, even when they don't make any sense. As one example, take the insulation requirements in the IBC - in Hawaii, at sea level, the temperature ranges between ~60F and ~90F (15-32C); we don't need insulation (or heating, or, in most residences, air conditioning). Yet, the County building code requires it because of the IBC. It's ridiculous.
Your Rights Online

11th Circuit: You Do Not Have To Decrypt Your Data->

Submitted by
J053
J053 writes "The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that requiring you to decrypt your data is "evidentiary", and therefore covered by the 5th Amendment. "The government's attempt to force this man to decrypt his data put him in the Catch-22 the 5th Amendment was designed to prevent – having to choose between self-incrimination or risking contempt of court," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Testimony I sent in to the state House (Score 3, Interesting) 200

I am writing in opposition to HB 2288, which if enacted will impose onerous reporting requirements on anyone providing Internet access in the State of Hawaii and expose the citizens of Hawaii to the possible exposure of their online habits.

This Bill requires any "company that provides access to the Internet" (sec. 1, line 6-7) to "retain customer records" including "each subscriber's information and internet destination history information" for "no less than two years" (sec. 1, lines 14-17). The "internet destination history information" is to include the Internet protocol address, domain name, or host name of every destination contacted by a subscriber.

It is no business of the State (or my Internet provider, for that matter) what sites I visit on the Internet. Most Internet providers currently have their subscribers' information, but very few record the destination of the subscribers' connections. This Bill would impose a requirement on all Internet providers to record and retain this information, which would require a large investment in equipment and network configuration expertise to achieve.

It is also unclear to whom this Bill would apply. Clearly the intent is for it to apply to Internet Service Providers, but given the language of "company that provides access to the Internet", it could be held to apply to coffe shops, hotels, Internet cafes, or even the individual who fails to secure a wireless home Internet router. For even moderately busy providers, this would be a huge amount of data which must be recorded and stored.

More importantly, there is no provision in this Bill to safeguard the information collected. Data on an individual's Internet traffic habits could be extremely sensitive - for example, an employer might be able to discover that an employee participates in workplace safety discussions from his/her home, information that the individual might not want the employer to know about. Under this Bill, there is no prohibition against Internet providers selling this sensitive customer information to anyone,
nor are there any provisions requiring judicial review before the State (police, prosecutors, etc.) acquire these records.

As the manager of a corporate Internet-connected network, would this Bill require me to monitor all of my organization's users' Internet traffic? That would be a huge invasion of their privacy. If not, then the Bill is useless, since all traffic from my organization appears (to my upstream provider) to come from a single Internet address. How would this Bill accomplish anything in this case?

In summary, this is a poorly thought out, fundamentally flawed Bill that would do nothing to solve any current or even perceived problem, would impose onerous data retention and reporting requirements on all providers of Internet connectivity, and would expose the citizens of Hawaii to an unprecedented invasion of their privacy. I urge you to reject this Bill.

DRM

The Humble Indie Bundle 3 Released-> 1

Submitted by JimWise
JimWise writes "The fourth Humble Bundle Humble Bundle has been released (the third to be released was the Humble Frozenbyte Bundle). Included in this bundle are: Crayon Physics Deluxe by Klooniegames; Cogs by
Lazy 8 Studios; VVVVVV by Terry Cavanagh; Hammerfight by Kranx Productions; and And Yet It Moves by Broken Rules. Each of the games in the bundle is DRM free and available for Windows, Mac, and Linux, as well as available through Steam. As with the other Humble Bundles, you pay what you want and customize how much goes towards the developers, EFF, Child's Play, and the Humble Tip."

Link to Original Source

This fortune is inoperative. Please try another.

Working...