Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Perhaps... (Score 1) 196

One more thing. Let me put this into a concrete context, perhaps that'll transfer the idea a little better.

I go to the Kindle store. I only like science fiction, books on Python. I can tell them so, or I can let them figure it out. But either way, that's what they'll show me for specials and so forth. If I enter my email, they can email me (see, no way for them to know my email otherwise unless I actually buy.) So, this, for me, would be good. I see books I want, and I never see another stupid vampire book again. They, in turn, have a customer who is more likely to buy, because (shock) they're actually showing me things I want.

But when I leave the site, all knowledge of me, goes with me. Now, when I'm visiting, say,, that crap does not -- can not -- follow me around.

Now, say someone visits the Kindle store using my URL. I thoughtlessly pasted it into an email to them or something, and off they go. One thing will happen, and another might. First, they get Python and science fiction suggestions for the personalized part of their advertising experience. If they buy from those suggestions, no harm done. But second, they may buy something else, such as a stupid vampire book. Later, I come back, a vampire book is presented to me, I hop to my clickable prefs, am hopefully offered the opportunity to unclick "vampire books" or whatever, and off I go.

Is this so bad? Right now, my SO and I use the same Amazon account. I like, as stated, Python and SF. She likes mysteries and cookbooks. So I see those. All the time. It's not the end of the world. What's missing here is the ability to tell Amazon that I am not her, and for our shopping experiences to be differentiated.

I suspect -- I'm just guessing -- that if the limits of how the site knew what you wanted were set the way I suggest, they'd be a lot more careful to show you what you wanted, because it's one of the only avenues left to better the targeting of their advertising.

Anyway, again, just mulling it over. Maybe it truly sucks as an idea. Your thoughts on how to get out our shared cookie/scripting nightmare are?

Comment Re:Perhaps... (Score 1) 196

The point is, it'd be a new way of operating. The site would provide copyable links to share.

No question it's more work.

But OTOH, it gets you a personalized experience.

It's not like most websites are using cookies and scripting responsibly now anyway. Certainly the ad companies aren't. Be a treat to turn all that crap off. But if, and it's a big if, I admit, you wanted the site to know your shopping habits, that's a way for them to do it without your browser having to shovel in a bunch of bandwidth eating, data-stealing crap from WeFuckCustomers, Inc.

As I said, it's just an idea. Seems like we're in need of some ideas, though.

Comment Re:the lard of hosts for fat ads (Score 1) 196

Facebook? You use Facebook and you're concerned about ads?

...problem solved.

Also, from my POV, the only "independent sites" out there don't depend on external ads. The others are, by definition, dependent. Like this one.

Comment Perhaps... (Score 1) 196

Perhaps there is a way to put the load, and the expectations, on the user.

You go to a website. If you desire a personalized experience, "click here" and then bookmark.

Resulting page is site.tld/longRandomGeneratedUniqueThing/restofurl.whatever

All links on the resulting page are set that way now. The site is responsible for keeping that "thing" associated with your preferences and etc., as well as generating the right links on all the pages you visit there. That's doable.

As long as you come and go from such a formatted URL, the site knows it's the same person.

If you don't do this, you get a non-personalized experience.

No cookies required. But it does require the user to be a little bit proactive if they want the experience to span multiple visits, because they'll have to bookmark. Otherwise, this visit will know it's them all the way across the visit, but when they leave... the info is either gone or buried in their history.

It's a bit clumsy, and it certainly isn't secure in the sense of others not being able to appear as that person and so forth, but "secure" surely isn't a word I'd use for cookie technology, either. It does allow for basic identity, and it does put control of it in the hands of the user. So for cases where the limitations are acceptable, seems like a reasonable approach.

If not this, then something else. But cookies and forwarding the browser all over creation should die in a fire. Somehow.

Comment the lard of hosts for fat ads (Score 1) 196

The best option, IMHO, is the hosts file, frankly. Be nice if we could work out some solid collaborative way to make my block discoveries help you with yours, etc., but it's just fraught with too many problems and potential black hat undertakings.

Still, it's pretty easy to just have a little app you can paste domains into that just appends your hosts file with Yet Another Reference to the Black Hole Of Data.

Well, under OS X and Linux it is. Not sure about Windows. But years ago, when I was using Windows, it did have a hosts file you could get at. Still true?

Comment Re:The great nation ... (Score 2) 71

You don't even need a big hammer. The combination of some easily-obtained drugs, any solid surface, the secret-holder's fingers or other body parts, and just a small ball peen hammer will fully suffice to access any data, or the password to get at said data.

XKCD explains it in a nutshell.

Comment Re: Did we learn nothing from Snowden? (Score 1) 71

If you want to keep something private, store it somewhere that isn't connected to a network.

And encrypt it. And prevent others from physically accessing it. And never carry any media or printout from said that machine outside the physically secure area in which it is installed. And never, ever, mention any of this to anyone.

There's no such thing as a "secret" when two or more parties know. When one party knows, that's a secret. When two or more parties know, that's just gossip -- you have completely lost control of the information.

Comment Re:Summary is flat out WRONG (Score 1) 341

Note that under your interpretation, if a police officer sees someone committing a rape he can't arrest the guy until somebody comes down from the station with a warrant because arrests are "seizures."

No, arrests aren't seizures, and no, a police officer doesn't need a warrant to arrest someone. Constitutionally speaking, they do need a warrant to search and/or seize, just as the 4th amendment stipulates. Or else any government actor can do anything they want along these lines, as long as someone, somewhere, is willing to say "Well, hey, Cletus, that seems reasonable to me." In which case, as I have pointed out previously, there is no reason for the 4th amendment to exist, because it it utterly meaningless under such an interpretation.

The Courts actually have a lengthy list of types of search they consider reasonable.

Yes, the copious malfeasance of our many dishonorable, sophist, oath-violating judges has indeed become well entrenched. But as with slavery, women's rights, the drug war, and a huge host of other things, they are, as they very often are, completely, utterly, and without even the slightest shadow of a doubt, wrong.

Keep in mind I am not talking about what the courts say here. I'm talking about the constitution itself. Which is above the courts, because it defines the government, under which the courts operate. No judge can legitimately say "yeah, but I don't think so, so no." Among (the many) other problems with that is that it is an abject violation of their oath, and as such disqualifies them from holding the position. Of course the reality is that the judges and lawyers have captured the system, and whatever they say goes -- but to claim that this is constitutionally valid is just ridiculous. It's simply the usual banana-republic / despotic rule-making: whatever we say, goes.

Comment A Phoney Assumption (Score 1) 341

Just toss the phone in the industrial shredder before turning it on.

Just so you know, your phone is almost certainly always on, as long as the battery is in place and holding a charge. The suggestion that you have to "turn it on" has no relation to what the phone will be doing before it is turned on, which is basically anything the software/firmware in place tells it to do. Turning it on means you get to see and interact with the UI, and not much else.

Comment Re:Well now, not surprising (Score 1) 341

Slavery was "the law" for a great span of time as well. It was still 100% wrong. As is the whole misinterpretation of the word "unreasonable" as converting the trivially obvious and quite specific definition of "reasonable" in the fourth to "optional based on any government drone's opinion at the moment."

Comment The Handbag Argument (Score 1) 341

What you are arguing here is that following the constitution is inconvenient for the government in that it makes some part of its job (catching contraband) more difficult.

Now go read the constitution. The entire bill of rights is an exercise in making things more difficult for the government. Can they restrict your speech? No. Doesn't matter if you're calling them a bunch of numb-nutted fucktards. They still can't. There are no exceptions. Can they infringe on your right to bear arms? No. Even if that means you walk into the courtroom with a sword on your hip. There are no exceptions. Can they require you to quarter soldiers in your home? No. No matter what. There are no exceptions.

Now, ask yourself: WTF is going on when a judge - at any level - or congress - says otherwise? It's as plain as day: They are violating the constitution.

There is not one word in the fourth that says, or in any way implies, "except at the border." Including the word "unreasonable", which simply is telling you that any process that does not comply with the fourth IS what is unreasonable. The fourth lays out the precise formula for reasonable:

"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Anything else is unreasonable.

Otherwise, the fourth has no teeth whatsoever and might as well not be there at all. Which is straight-up absurdity.

Therefore, no such "at the border" exception actually exists.

Much less in a band of land extending 100 miles into the body of the country.

Comment Re:Summary is flat out WRONG (Score 1) 341

Dude, I hope you never write ANY software, because you demonstrated a complete failure to understand a very simple algorithm:

Reasonable is this: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Unreasonable is anything else

Otherwise the whole fourth is optional based upon the opinion of the searcher which is both absurd and, ironically enough, unreasonable.

The bill of rights is not a list of "well, if you think it's reasonable" items. It is a list of absolute restrictions on government power.

Case (or any other kind of) law: Any law that is unconstitutional, no matter what level it is formulated at, is unauthorized. Because the constitution is what authorizes government, from the top down. It doesn't matter if said law is made by congress, or the result of some the sophistry of a judge. If the constitution says they aren't authorized to do that, then they fucking well aren't authorized to do that, and they are acting criminally and furthermore have discarded all personal honor, as they have sundered their oath of office.

And as we all well know, "I was following orders" is not an acceptable excuse.

Comment Re:Summary is flat out WRONG (Score 1) 341

Silva does not seem to understand that searches at the border are, by definition, reasonable and therefore exempt from the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

Another person who completely misunderstands the 4th amendment's use of "unreasonable."

This is precisely what "reasonable" means in the context of the fourth:

no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Anything else is unreasonable.

Otherwise, we have to read the fourth as: "you only have to pay attention to these limitations if you want to", which is both absurd (not an uncommon result WRT the reasoning of lawyers and judges, sad to say) and directly contradicts the logos of the bill of rights in specific, and the constitution in general.

Finally, just in general, the courts and congress often make very serious mistakes. Something being "law" (or in this case, judicial fiat masquerading as law) is no guarantee that it is sane, right, or constitutional. From slavery to women's rights to the drug war to all manner of straight-up violations of the clear intent of almost the entire the bill of rights, US citizens have been victims of the very worst kinds of sophistry at the hand of the legal system. Unconstitutional border searches fall directly into the class of unconstitutional governmental malfuckery.

And before someone brings up article 3 awarding the judicial power over the constitution to SCOTUS, let's just take a quick look at what the judicial power is/

Say there's a law that says, in plain English, "if you get caught with meth and are found guilty, you go to jail, no ifs, ands or buts." Can the judge say "I'll just ignore this"? No. The judge cannot do that. The judge must obey the law. The judge does not have the authority to say, "well, no, what this really means is if you have a "mess in your room", obviously congress has a lisp." The law applies to the judge. The judge does not apply to the law. That is the "judicial power": Enforcement. Likewise, SCOTUS's "judicial power" as awarded in article 3 is to enforce the constitution. Not to re-define it. So when, for instance, the constitution says "shall not infringe", and SCOTUS says "of course the government can infringe because we say so", that is not a legitimate exercise of "judicial power", that is simply intentional constitutional violation by traitorous government actors.

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL." -- Dave Bowman, 2001