But, of course, if your machine is behind a firewall, they'll just outlaw having firewall because it impedes their ability to investigate you for crimes.

Actually, if you live in Michigan, this has already happened.

Unless this law has been repealed since 2003 (and I've been unable to find any evidence that it has), then I and everyone I know is a felon.

because with the government there is accountablity, responsilibty, a paper trail, transparency

Indeed...one need only look at the last eight years in the U.S. for the proof of this statement.

Oh, wait...

Could you point it out?

Certainly.

how would this work?

Please see my earlier post regarding this...apparently, they plan to infect your system with a remote access Trojan.

But don't worry...it's for your own good.

Unfortunately, the article cited is maddeningly vague as to how this initiative will be implemented. A little digging turns up this Register article on the subject, which contains slightly more info.

From the Register article:

In practical terms, remote searches would involve planting law enforcement Trojans on suspects' PCs. Police in Germany are most enthusiastic about pushing this tactic, the sort of approach even Vic Mackey from The Shield might baulk at, despite its many potential drawbacks, highlighted by El Reg on numerous occasions.

For starters, infecting the PC of a target of an investigation is hit and miss. Malware is not a precision weapon, and that raises the possibility that samples of the malware might fall into the hands of cybercrooks.

Even if a target does get infected there's a good chance any security software they've installed will detect the malware. Any security vendor who agreed to turn a blind eye to state-sanctioned Trojans would risk compromising their reputation, as amply illustrated by the Magic Lantern controversy in the US a few years back.

Then there are the civil liberties implications of the approach and questions about whether evidence obtained using the tactic is admissable in court.

Despite all these problems the idea of a law enforcement Trojan continues to gain traction and could become mainstream within five years, if EU ministers get their way.

So, in short, here's just one more compelling argument for ditching Windows for Linux...

At risk to my karma...

I drive professionally now, after deciding IT should remain a hobby, not a source of income. I see just about everything from behind the wheel of the behemoth I drive, and although part of me would like to second the concept of people who tailgate, cut people off, etc., in all fairness there are people out there who help create these situations. I'm referring to the guy who wants to the minimum speed limit in the passing lane on an expressway, or the guy who feels the need to police others by driving like a jerk in return. This does not excuse or condone the tailgating, but I've seen more than my fair share of people who generate a dangerous environment by not following the flow of traffic correctly.

Until recently, the speed limit on our local expressway was 70 mph, with a minimum of 45, truck speed of 55. They recently bumped it up to 70/55/60, and it seems to have actually reduced the number of jackholes on the roads in general. The difference in someone doing 45 while traffic around them is doing 70 is great enough to cause a potential problem just the same as someone tailgating at speed.

1.) Isn't this what a will is for?

2.) If you're really concerned about security, you could have the portion of the will that deals with passwords and such encrypted, and keep the encryption key in a different location or with a different agency, with instructions to each that the key is only to be used upon the event of your death.

Any system that's sufficiently complex will display behavior similar to our own. When machines eventually display incontrovertible evidence of self-awareness, rational humans will be forced to either admit that the machines do indeed have souls, or humans do not.

Only if it's enviroment it evolved in has been similar to are own. Otherwise it would show a different type of cognition.

Granted, which is why I used the word "similar". On reflection, even that word is insufficient. I meant "similar" only in that the system would achieve a self-awareness...not that it would in any way resemble our own, since (as you pointed out), there's no reason to assume that it would, and several reasons to assume that it wouldn't. In fact, one of the principal hazards of emergent self-awareness in machines may be that it results in an awareness so radically alien from ours that we each fail to recognize the other as self-aware.

What happened? I thought you were "done here".

Yes, you stated that there's no basis to say that it has been a success of failure. I remarked upon that in my previous post, saying that I was glad you weren't going to try to make the case that the absence of attacks were some sort of evidence that the program was working.

Which, of course, is what you immediately proceeded to do in your next two sentences.

Then, you immediately followed up with another disclaimer, already trying to cover your ass. What you did is equivalent to an attorney asking a witness an improper question, and then immediately saying "withdrawn" when the opposing attorney makes their objection. The judge can instruct the jury to disregard, but it doesn't matter. The subject is already out there. That's exactly the turd you tried to float here, and you're still squalling over my sinking of it.

One. More. Time.

If you honestly didn't intend the implication, retract your words now. If you did, stand behind your words. I'm not particularly interested in anything else you might have to say.

Read my entire post.

I addressed that under "subsequent mealy-mouthed attempts at evasion", thanks.

Your antics here remind me rather strongly of Neil Cavuto and his "Cavuto Mark" on FOX "News". Same bullshit insinuation technique, same profuse denials when called on it.

Once again, seeing as how you were called on it by two other posters besides myself, your implication was clear, regardless of how hysterically you deny it. If you honestly didn't intend the implication, retract your words now. If you did, stand behind your words. But don't blather on about how "if you inferred something from my words then that is entirely your own doing, not mine". That's bullshit, and we all know it.

You sir are an idiot. I think we're done here.

Lob out an ad hominem and flee the field. How depressingly predictable.

Really, You're really going to try to claim you weren't trying to insinuate anything with this line?

Now, I ask you: How many terrorist attacks have there been on planes since this system was put in place?

And when I call you out on your dishonesty, I'm the "troll". Brilliant.

As I made clear above, the lack of arrests for terrorism do not prove anything about the success or failure of the program.

They prove that the program (as far as its stated goals go) is either a failure or pointless. Take your pick.

If I didn't write it then it isn't what I'm saying.

Once again, here's what you did say:

You might even claim that the absence of attacks is a result of the nets being put up and therefore they have been a success.

Now, I ask you: How many terrorist attacks have there been on planes since this system was put in place?

Again, your implication here is crystal clear, your subsequent mealy-mouthed attempts at evasion notwithstanding.

If you inferred something from my words then that is entirely your own doing, not mine.

Bullshit. You're the author of the above words. Man up and either accept the consequences of what you wrote, or retract them.

No it doesn't prove either of those things. If something doesn't happen over an arbitrary amount of time that doesn't mean it cannot happen at any point in the future. Do you really not get that?

Oh really? So does that mean I shouldn't venture out in the morning without a parachute, on the off chance that gravity will malfunction and fling me skyward?

Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

Number of people screened to date: 160,000.

Number of people arrested for NON-terrorism related offenses: 1,266.

Number of people arrested for terrorism-related offenses: ZERO.

If a program cannot generate even ONE terrorism-related arrest in the screening of 160,000 people, one has to seriously consider the possibility that either the methodology is flawed, or the intended targets simply do not exist. Do you really not get that?

If there haven't been any tiger attacks in the whole time the net has been up then there's no basis to say that it has been a success or a failure.

Well, that's a relief. I thought you were going to point to the absence of attacks as some sort of proof that this system is working, despite the complete lack of any definitive evidence, like arrests.

You might even claim that the absence of attacks is a result of the nets being put up and therefore they have been a success.

Now, I ask you: How many terrorist attacks have there been on planes since this system was put in place?

Oh my...looks like I spoke too soon.

On a related note, if you're worried about tiger attacks, you can borrow my tiger repelling rock. It, like the snares, doesn't actually catch tigers, but it's guaranteed to keep them away. I myself haven't so much as seen a tiger since I began carrying it.

Note that I'm not saying it actually has been a success,

No, but you're certainly insinuating it rather loudly...

I'm saying I see no example of it having failed

As I made clear above, the complete lack of any terrorism related arrests clearly spell out the failure of this program. Either the terrorists are there, and are not being caught, or they aren't there at all, in which case the program is pointless...assuming, of course, that "capture of terrorists" was its actual goal...

If it gets higher arrests than random searches what's the problem?

Because this program was supposed to find terrorists, not people with fake IDs or people trying to sneak a couple of ounces through security.

If some villagers are mauled by a tiger, and I promise to catch the tigers, and I implement a system of nets and snares around the village, and I don't catch any tigers, then I have failed to keep my promise, regardless of how many snakes and wild boars I do catch.