Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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: Unlawful intrusion of the privacy of the people (Score 1) 562

by Leofcwen (#48845149) Attached to: Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications
Statists like Obama and Cameron don't care about the freedoms, liberties and rights of the people. We have the right to live our lives in peace and privacy and free from the intrusion of the state unless they have reasonable suspicion and probable cause of either criminal activities or the intent to carry them out. If they have that they can get a warrant from a judge to investigate further but do not have the right to monitor everything we do. Comments I may place on here or YouTube where they're open to the public are one thing but personal e-mails and text messages to another private party are another.

Comment: Jurisdictional creep (Score 1) 226

I wonder how the US would take it if a judge in another country made use of that claim for their benefit? It might be claimed that because company X chose to operate in their jurisdiction they accepted their jurisdictional boundaries. Various governments have already claimed jurisdiction in other countries for years, which is why they may claim tax on money earned by people working abroad, even though they may have done none of that work in that country...

Comment: Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! (Score 1) 1034

by Leofcwen (#46036799) Attached to: AMC Theaters Allegedly Calls FBI to Interrogate a Google Glass Wearer
I read they (the FBI) changed their priorities recently and no longer consider law enforcement a high priority. They instead choose to focus an increasing amount of resources towards 'National Security' and leave many crimes uninvestigated. I suppose there are always resources available to intimidate and strong-arm someone for wearing the wrong kind of glasses. I wonder how much this lunacy cost.

Comment: Re:That's a tiny number (Score 1) 464

by Leofcwen (#45761075) Attached to: Reuters: RSA Weakened Encryption For $10M From NSA
Ignoring the president of the day, there are four reasons I wouldn't open start a company in the US, at least not until the situation's resolved:
  1. I don't want to deal with the kleptomaniac, kiddie fondling perverts in the TSA (See YouTube for examples).
  2. I don't trust American police (see YouTube and countless news articles for examples).
  3. HMRC are known thieves but the IRS seem to be even worse, based on cases of people I know of and the proven abuse of position within the IRS as exposed this year.
  4. Because I'm not American I know your government would treat me like a common criminal (even without any evidence) and monitor and record everything I did (digitally).

Since the TSA (or someone like them are not going away and I see the situation only getting worse, the quality of officers in the Police there isn't going to improve (not when the recruits have gone through government indoctrination/schooling), the IRS will still keep stealing from and abusing people (just like HMRC will), and the intelligence contractors that run the US's intelligence services will make sure they steer things towards bigger contracts for them I don't see it ever happening.

Comment: Re:Unconscionable Contract clause (Score 1) 519

by Leofcwen (#45442317) Attached to: Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review
As a contractor, I've studied contract law. When they told her about it they were making an offer to contract and if she ignored their offer suggests implicit consent. If she replied though and refused their offer and made her own counter-offer the call situation would be different. This way, if they ignore her counter-offer and say nothing it would be they who agreed to her terms. If she rebutted their offer and made her own through an affidavit they'd have to do the same, rebutting each of her statements, point by point.

Comment: Re:Hint taken. (Score 1) 519

by Leofcwen (#45442281) Attached to: Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review
It already is, under Common Law which is the law of the land in both the US, UK and other countries. Defamation, libel, slander, etc (depending on the method of abuse). All she has to do is to write an affidavit, get it notarised and send it in to them along with demands of her own, including damages for the harm they caused her. If it was me, I'd go on the offensive as it seems they're the guilty party after all. But saying that, it's always best to study the full facts before taking action.

Comment: Re:grain of truth? (Score 1) 413

by Leofcwen (#44513355) Attached to: Former NSA Chief Warns Hackers Will Attack US If Snowden Is Captured

anarchists: I don't see this one per se, but the govt described bradley manning as an anarchist so that's why they think that.

I'm not sure if I understood the term anarchists in the same way as he meant it but anarchy has two main extremes. On one hand it may be seen as another definition for libertarianism where state has less control over the lives of the people. The result would, from the point of view of those within the state, this would be anarchy. They inevitably prefer a more ordered society they can control from the centre. The other extreme to which I referred is what these people hope people will associate the word with, that of burning cars, of gangs roaming the streets looking for a victim, the total breakdown of society. Based on the context and the speaker, I suspect he meant a negative meaning of the word. Aren't you glad the government is there to protect us from freedom?

Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.