Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... (Score 1) 379

if everyone does this

That is the weak point of the plan. We haven't even managed to get everyone to do email encryption, even though the standards and the easy-to-use tools have been there for almost two decades now. What makes you think you can switch them to a P2P darknet?

I think that a more realistic scenario will be 1% doing what you describe, and 99% being utterly clueless.

Comment: Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... (Score 1) 379

There is no bill submitted yet, but it's too early for that (and, well, there's that whole Congress session transition thing). But note that they were willing to go public, first to newspapers, and then in front of the Congress, demanding that either the companies "help out", or that Congress force them to. I'd say that shoots down your claim that they would not want the publicity - on the contrary, they are very much trying to make this public. And given past track record on things like Patriot Act, I can totally see why - there is sufficient support for such measures among the populace when the timing is right (like right now, with all the ISIS panic).

Re: strawman. I was specifically addressing your point to my post, in which I said that FBI is demanding a backdoor by law, and you responded that this is totally not the same thing because it does not pertain to private encryption, while that's exactly what it was about. There's no strawman there, just correcting your misunderstanding of what I was saying.

Comment: Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... (Score 1) 379

Uh, what? We're talking about on-device encryption here. That is very much the issue where YOU encrypt things. The FBI are complaining that Apple and Google have made it too easy to do full encryption (and Google has now made it on by default in Android 5.0), and when people make use of it, they cannot decrypt it even with a warrant.

Comment: Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... (Score 1) 379

Well, FBI is publicly demanding backdoor to all phone encryption. And the outrage is largely restricted to tech forums and such - your typical user is like, "well, if they need it to catch pedos and terrorists, I suppose it's fine?". So it doesn't seem that they're worried much about the backlash.

Comment: Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... (Score 1) 379

and it is not possible to declare it so without collapsing the whole financial system to say nothing of dozens of other industries.

You have not demonstrated that so far. Outright ban is one thing, and is indeed not viable. A strict permit regime with mandatory backdoor keys is perfectly viable.

As to controlling everyone with fear, how has that worked out in the P2P piracy struggle? Not at all?

For one thing, the people who are pirating stuff are getting something immediately beneficial out of it, and its value is readily understandable to everyone. Not so with encryption. If you ban/regulate it, 99% of the population simply won't know where to start, or why they even want to - with no premade stuff like Tor bundle readily available etc.

For another thing, penalties for piracy aren't all that harsh in practice. It will most likely be a civil suit, not criminal, and even then they'll offer to settle. Realistically, people know that unless they run a tracker, they will get away with a fine of a couple of thousand or so even in the worst case. Now make it a mandatory 10 year stint in a federal prison for even a single downloaded track, and make the first couple of cases front page news, and then it'll be comparable to what I'm talking about.

What is more, the politics on this issue do not favor the NSA unless they can get people to stop talking about the NSA.

Only at this particular moment - and even then I think you haven't kept and eye on the polls, where 50% of electorate is perfectly happy with whatever privacy intrusions they may have to live with if that makes them "safe" (because the NSA told them it is necessary). And they always have several jokers which have yet to be beaten here in US - "think of the children", "the terrorists hate our freedoms" etc. Come next 9/11 (and it will happen, it's only a matter of then), they will have all the support they need to push that stuf through.

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, it's already happening. Haven't you seen FBI pushing for backdoors to cellphone encryption? All they need is a few more hawks in Congress, and they will make it a law.

Comment: Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! (Score 1) 465

by shutdown -p now (#48592789) Attached to: Peru Indignant After Greenpeace Damages Ancient Nazca Site

No, the problem with these systems is rent, because rent is theft. It's profiting from basic needs on the principle of artificial scarcity. Look at our country, there are far more vacant houses than there are homeless families.

“Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.”

You might be surprised as to who wrote that.

Comment: Re:PRIVATE encryption of everything just became... (Score 1) 379

You can't regulate it without attempting to decrypt people's messages which is evidence of trying to read them which is politically unsustainable.

Why would you need to decrypt the messages? Most encrypted protocols have some unencrypted handshake when connection is initiated; said handshake can serve as evidence of intent to establish an illegal encrypted connection, if the other party is not on the whitelist.

Or you could even just ban server software capable of providing such connections, again, with only certified users being eligible to possess it.

Unenforceable? You don't need to enforce it for everyone. You just publicize a few high-profile cases, and most people will steer clear for the fear of being next.

Comment: Re:Blame Canada! (Score 1) 105

There is a big difference between a system of law and a system of justice in criminal matters. The former concentrates on precisely following codified rules and precedent; the latter seeks to convict the guilty, free the innocent, and be extremely reasonable with the accused who are not clearly guilty or not guilty (but who are apparently not innocent). Canadian criminal courts are not where you want to rely upon a technicality if you have committed a crime; this is one of many appeals cases where someone convicted on the totality of evidence failed to get the conviction quashed on a technicality. Very few people in Canada would consider what is known of the case would do anything other than convict and let the conviction stand, and most would be shocked if Fearon were set free because the police were not precisely perfect during a search incident to arrest.

The reason behind American evidence rules are not to "precisely follow the codified rules" for the rules' sake. It has a purely utilitarian purpose - it is supposed to be a powerful deterrent law enforcement from conducting illegal searches in hope that they will produce evidence that can be used to convict, by rendering such evidence useless.

Comment: Re:No. They are NOT accepting bitcoin for payment. (Score 1) 107

by shutdown -p now (#48578753) Attached to: Microsoft Quietly Starts Accepting Bitcoin As Payment Method

Of course they subcontract the actual BTC processing to someone else. That's not the point. The point is that they deemed the demand sufficient to warrant doing something like that in the first place, and to make a public announcement about it.

Comment: Re:Read a map (Score 1) 698

by shutdown -p now (#48570593) Attached to: French Publishers Prepare Lawsuit Against Adblock Plus

Secondly do you find it really good to send human to the meat grinder like the russian did ? Personally I think people like you which think sending millions of people to the meat grinder is a valid tactic disgusts me. It is neither courageous to send people to their death that way, nor is it cowardice to admit defeat when your position cannot be maintained.

Thing is, distasteful as you may find it, it's ultimately what won the war. Were USSR to surrender the same as France did, unwilling to pay that high a price, that would mark the complete dominance of Germany in Europe. Given that USSR is ultimately responsible for 2/3 of total Axis casualties (including Japanese; if you only count Europe, that proportion is even more skewed), you can imagine the likelihood of Allied victory if Soviets were knocked out, and their territory - including natural resources such as oil, as well as heavy industry, all far removed from the front lines - would all become German strategic assets. Even if that was doable - which I find dubious - the cost would've been insane. Just as it was, for the country that ended up bearing it, because it could (being a totalitarian state).

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.