Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Every cell phone is a lo-jack... (Score 1) 187

by dunkindave (#49625829) Attached to: Police Can Obtain Cellphone Location Records Without a Warrant

No, what this article talks about is the police unilaterally collecting information without any court oversight.

No, the article talks about the ruling saying the police need a court order rather than a warrant, but they still need a court order, which means an active prosecution must be in progress and a judge has to sign off on the request. That sound to me like court oversight. The problem here is the police have a lower threshold to meet to get a court order than they do to get a warrant.

Never mind the rather shocking implications with respect to personal freedoms when the government is given carte blanc(sic) to track everyone at all times.

That is the crux of the case, namely the government isn't tracking everyone all the time, the cell phone companies are, or at least their phones when on, since that is how the cell phone system works. The government is merely using that data when a court feels it is justified and issues a court order.

Comment: Still needs a court order (Score 1) 187

by dunkindave (#49625665) Attached to: Police Can Obtain Cellphone Location Records Without a Warrant
The summary makes it sound like the police now can just walk in and get all the records they want with almost no restrictions. The reality is this ruling said that a warrant isn't needed but A COURT ORDER IS. The problem, and why it was appealed, is that a warrant REQUIRES the showing of probable cause, while a court order just means the judge thinks it might be useful information. But it still means a judge has to sign off on the request in an active case. Also, this ruling was in the 11th Circuit which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, so it isn't binding elsewhere. The article says there has been a similar ruling in the 5th Circuit (Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas), but a contrary ruling in the 3rd Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania).

Comment: Re:Nice Smokescreen of Yours (Score 1) 149

by dunkindave (#49623155) Attached to: How the NSA Converts Spoken Words Into Searchable Text

There is ZERO need to record ALL phone conversations, instead there must be a small list of persons which have their communications tapped, because of their political, criminal or terrorist affiliations.

Never said there was. My response was to the statement that any spying conducted inside the US borders was a form of treason, which I disagreed with. You in fact agree with me by saying "there must be a small list of persons which have their communications tapped, because of their political, criminal or terrorist affiliations". In fact in an earlier post in this thread I said "I think they have gone too far, but please enlighten us with clear rules to say where the line is?". The question then is what the criteria is for this "small list" since that still doesn't answer where the line is.

Comment: Re:Minor inconvenience for United (Score 4, Informative) 126

The claim that the defendants don't have significant presence in Illinois for purposes of legal action, in the context of an Internet-based service, is just ridiculous. The judge is applying brick-and-mortar rules to a global network.

No, he is apply the law. Where to file is spelled out in 28 US Code 1391, and unless you can't for some reason, like you don't know where the defendant lives, the place to file is "a judicial district in which any defendant resides". The law is clear, and the judge has no choice but to follow it.

Comment: Re:Minor inconvenience for United (Score 3, Informative) 126

It's a standard legal practice by unscrupulous companies, make the small guy spend a lot of money to travel long distances in order to have his day in court.

That is why under 28 US Code 1391(b) the proper legal venue is where the defendant resides. The reason why you see a lot of patent suits filed in Texas is that for large corporations, where they reside is murky since they do business everywhere and are registered the Secretary of State in most/all of the states, including Texas, so they are considered "local" under these rules. The "small guy" however lives in a specific place, so that is where the proper venue would be.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 4, Interesting) 126

This has similarities to what I saw in inkjet printers many years ago. For a while, they were selling printers at a big discount because they would make their money on the replacement ink cartridges. Problem was the new printers came with a new full color and black cartridge and cost less than it cost to buy the two cartridges individually. It was actually cheaper to buy a new printer, take the cartridges out of the boxes, and throw away the printer, than it was to buy replacement cartridges. Same thing here - it is sometimes cheaper to buy more of a trip than you need then throw away part of it you don't need.

Regarding the cartridges, due to a couple issues that came up, such as this one, they started including cartridges that were 1/2 to 1/3 full with new printers.

Comment: Re:What about a bus? (Score 2) 280

by dunkindave (#49586853) Attached to: New Study Suggests Flying Is Greener Than Driving

Your assumption is true for a loaded bus, but municipal busses, in all but a few cities, spend much more time travelling nearly empty than they do full.

Show me a plane that makes stops every few city blocks then we can accept your data as a fair comparison. Otherwise, stick to data about long-haul bus and train routes.

Comment: Re:What about a bus? (Score 4, Informative) 280

by dunkindave (#49586739) Attached to: New Study Suggests Flying Is Greener Than Driving
The comparison between planes and other modes of transit would be for longer-haul routes since planes do not provide inter-city transport. For longer routes, buses normally run fairly full. And for those that say buses aren't always full, I have been on a 737 plane between cities 1000 miles apart where there were only four passengers, including me, and on a flight to the far east where I had a row of five seats on a 747 all to myself for 12 hours.

Comment: Re:scrambled eh? (Score 0) 71

by dunkindave (#49581947) Attached to: Google Announces "Password Alert" To Protect Against Phishing Attacks

Why bother scrambling when we already know that chrome puts saved passwords in a clear text unencrypted text file?

Because those passwords are stored with the explicit permission of the user, and because they need to be accessible so they can be used to fill in forms. On the other hand, to simply check if you have typed the Google password doesn't need the clear text password, so best practice says it should be hashed, err, I mean scrambled.

Comment: Re:Burden of proof (Score 2) 140

by dunkindave (#49566531) Attached to: New Privacy Threat: Automated Vehicle Occupancy Detection
Years ago I was in the carpool lane driving with my daughter in a car seat in the back seat of my truck, which due to the vehicle's height made her invisible from outside the truck. I got pulled over, and when the officer came up to my door, he saw her, simply said "Sorry", then walked away without another word. About two weeks later I was in a similar situation in the carpool lane watching the cop come up fast behind me. I told my daughter to raise and waive her arms which made her visible. Just as the cop looked ready to turn on his lights, he suddenly dropped back and pulled out of traffic onto the left shoulder. While I wasn't guilty and didn't get a ticket in either case, having to pull over and waste the time on the first occasion, not to mention the effects of adrenaline both events caused, was not fun.

Comment: Re: question (Score 1) 282

by dunkindave (#49528137) Attached to: German Court Rules Adblock Plus Is Legal

In my opinion we would be better off with absolutely no limits on free speech.

Slandering some, threatening someone, revealing people's private information like their SSN and credit card info, committing fraud, committing treason. Just a few things I can think of off the top of my head that can happen through speech that I think are valid limits on free speech. Or would you not mind if any or all of these were committed against you (minus treason since that is done against a state)?

1 Mole = 007 Secret Agents