Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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: 2 absurdities here (Score 1) 511

by S1ngularity (#45897955) Attached to: US Federal Judge Rules NSA Data Collection Legal
There are two glaring absurdities in this ruling: 1) This is making the absurd assumption that NSA wasn't collecting any of this junk prior to 911, let alone that they "could" have done anything about it (if we're going to find this needle, we need MOAR HAY!!!). 2) The question before the court was "is this a constitutional seizure of Americans private information?" not "can we imagine a scenario in which this could have been applied to 911 investigations?". Absurd.

Comment: Re:More regulation = less choices (Score 1) 214

Who pays the tax is a matter of price elasticity. When the tax is levied the cost is divided up between all of the parties to the transaction (shareholders, employees, customers). What proportion of the new cost to make transaction is born by which party has everything to do with their relative price elasticities.

Comment: Re:You know... (Score 1) 351

I'm a Google customer, I don't pay cash, but I give them tons of personal information from my searches and email that they use as inputs to build their monetize-able products. "Customer" in barter is just as legitimate a relationship. We've done a bit of a disservice by pushing the meme that no cash transfer makes you the product, not the customer. It's more interesting than that.

Late to the party, I know.

Comment: Why first amendment (Score 1) 225

by S1ngularity (#42118581) Attached to: Supreme Court Blocks Illinois Law Against Recording Police
I know it's all press-like and maybe you want to publish someday. But wouldn't it make more sense to classify it as 2nd and 4th amendment breach? A camera as reasonable, non-violent armament for defense, and taking/destroying the evidence recorded on it being an unreasonable search and seizure(hell, if not out right evidence tampering)?

Comment: Corporations can't don't have "alone time" (Score 1) 387

by S1ngularity (#41854585) Attached to: Seattle's Creepy Cameraman Pushes Public Surveillance Buttons
Trying to fire up my euphemism engine here at work. I think that an individual recording you causes you to think of all the unseemly things that individual might do with pictures of you in their private collection. Law enforcement and corporations are just abstract enough that we can't easily imagine them doing gross things while looking at them. (Just one idea)

Comment: Turn the tables, be labeled a terrorist (Score 1) 302

by S1ngularity (#41025111) Attached to: The Rapid Rise of License Plate Readers
Imagine a FOSS project that does this in reverse. Regular citizens point their webcams out the window at smart-phones out the windshield. Some fancy P2P shenanigans and there is a huge public database that shows the locations of everyone. Now we all see where our police and pols are at all times too. How many hours before our masters are knocking at our front doors to shut down this egregious violation of their essential rights to privacy?

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.