Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Those who grab for power can't be trusted with it (Score 2) 77

From the article:

Mr Cameron has previously said in relation to cyber attacks that there should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read".

It sounds like Mr Cameron wants microphones in every person's residence.
People who feel with absolute certainty that someone else is always the problem will always try to grab more power for themselves, and because of that, they can't be trusted with the ability to grab power, even though their current goals in using that power are ostensibly laudatory. They can't be trusted with power, because they will never consider any part of any of their own goals as being suspect. Citizens don't benefit when people who can't cope with compromising and feeling frustrated have a career in politics or public service.

Comment: Re:Secret Ballot? (Score 2) 480

by John.Banister (#48796653) Attached to: How Bitcoin Could Be Key To Online Voting
I don't disagree, but I would like to point out that this "thug" has to work retail, interact with each voter, whereas your standard issue "corrupt election worker" can swap a box of voter secret ballots for a box of "election corrupter" secret ballots and change results in a more wholesale manner. One "thug" interaction per voter ought to make election corruption a little more expensive.

What if you made it so that the voting happened online, but the verification could only happen in a "vote verification booth" that is similar to (and monitored similarly to) a secret ballot voting booth. The number of people who would actually want to verify would always be smaller that the number who vote, so that might provide the beneficial convenience for the voting along with the security to keep thugs from seeing the verification. You could talk about a person bringing a camera into the verification booth, but that could happen with a voting booth also.

Comment: Re:How to defeat NSA ? (Score 1) 234

by John.Banister (#48704779) Attached to: NSA Says They Have VPNs In a 'Vulcan Death Grip'
Read the Spiegel article and learn the security methods that might still work. Using these methods, secure all your communication all the time. If everyone does that, then the NSA has to hire more people to sort away the chaff. The more people they hire, the greater the likelihood that they again hire someone with a conscience.

Method 2. Live two lives, one that's fake and boring, and another that's secret and furtive. Hide the limited second life amongst the chatter of the first. This method will work better if everyone with boring lives are securing all their communication all the time.

Comment: Re:San Diego (Score 1) 285

by John.Banister (#48646377) Attached to: Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety
I was thinking about a product for that. With front and rear facing cameras accompanied by IR laser rangefinders, GPS and a data connection, one could have a button that causes this system to automatically send evidence of annoying violations from fellow motorists to the relevant police department. When I'm driving on the freeway, following at a safe distance and some (the stereotype that has developed in my mind is an SUV driving parent) other motorist decides to shoehorn their vehicle into that gap, I sometimes feel motivated to drive aggressively in response. I think a "don't get mad, get even" device that sends video of the preceding 40 seconds accompanied by location, speed, and rangefinder information to the appropriate police department might be a much better response. A similar setup in the rear could handle tailgaters. Additionally, the equipment could show me my own following distance in terms of both distance and time at my current speed, which information would be a useful reminder for me to keep my own driving correct.

Comment: Trains (Score 2) 257

by John.Banister (#48491227) Attached to: The Driverless Future: Buses, Not Taxis
Driverless electric cars that don't go faster than 20 mph don't need to be very aerodynamic. Parts of people's routes are often shared, or park-n-rides wouldn't work. Driverless cars could slowly go to assembly spots where they link up into trains, and then the trains go fast on predetermined routes to other spots where they disassemble back into cars that slowly travel the last 1/8 mile to individual destinations. It'll enact the functionality of public transport for people wealthy enough to own personal pods. The big problem is the space consumed protecting against impact from human driven vehicles.

Weekend, where are you?

Working...