Comment AI versus AI (Score 1) 62
Then to fool the AI, all you need is an AI program to drive the mouse to mimic the original person.
In all likelihood, she probably didn't even know about the watermarks, let alone considered how to defeat them.
I think we have a priori evidence of that!
How can someone work for the NSA and NOT be aware that they track everything?
She didn't work for the NSA; so was employed by a contractor that provides classified translation services, and apparently for that work had access to the NSA's network (either NSANet or JWICS since SIPRnet is only secret). Not realizing they track shows she isn't terribly bright.
If I was an NSA leaker, I certainly wouldn't be e-mailing my leaks from my work computer/e-mail account. I'd set up a throwaway account (and even then would be looking over my shoulder every second).
OK, she is VERY dumb. And I agree with your tactics - as a good first measure, but nowhere near all I would do.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. What you cite aren't problems and have few dissenters, but what happens when schools start setting rules for admission based on controversial criteria?
You make statements against imposing Sharia Law? You Islamophobe - no admission!
You make statements that [pick a former US president] did things that hurt the U.S.? You anti-American - no admission!
You are registered as a [pick a party]? You engage in wrong-think - no admission!
As lgw said, it is legal for a school to do all of these things. I am not advocating passing laws forbidding the school's right to set such rules, just pointing out the dangers of the slope that often appears.
It is a private institution [...] SOOO... they get to decide entirely and arbitrarily who they are willing to teach and what moral characteristics they expect that person to have.
Just wanted to point out that this isn't true. There are still anti-discrimination laws private institutions must follow, so for example a whites only or blacks only college is illegal under federal law. Also, Harvard receives federal funding which, despite being a private college, makes them subject to a slew of other laws controlling what criteria they can use to admit students.
I think the problem lgw was referring to is the slippery slope. This sets the precedent for them to go after things they disagree with. Today it is the students being assholes (in most people's eyes), but what will it be tomorrow? Nothing is stopping them from doing it for the things lgw said.
It's like the issue right now with "hate speech". There are groups calling for banning it, but what is it? If you let people ban it for one form of comments a group finds objectionable, why can't another group later use it ban things most don't see a problem with? After all, to that group it represents hate, so who are you to say it shouldn't be banned? Don't laugh, it is already happening.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
The 5th amendment gives you the right to not testify and provide proof of your own guilt through direct testimony.
The Fifth Amendment gives you the right not to be compelled to testify against yourself, or to quote it, for one "to be a witness against himself". Note the wording. You can be compelled to testify, just not as a witness against yourself. What is well established in precedent is this means you cannot be forced to provide testimony that would prove your guilt, but you can be forced to testify about facts not in dispute, like the combination to the safe in your home that people have seen you open, or the passcode to your phone. That isn't deemed to be testifying against oneself.
The issue here though is the person claims he gave the passcode but the police say it doesn't work, so is he lying, or isn't he? The Court thinks he is lying, which is a separate crime, so he gets to spend some quality time in the care of the state.
It doesn't give you the right to hide evidence.
There is no legal right to hide evidence, but unless the state can prove you know where the evidence is, there is no legal right to compel you to disclose its location. It is extremely hard to prove what someone knows, versus what you think they probably know, so this becomes a very hard bar to overcome for the state.
A more apt metaphor might be refusing to provide access to a safety deposit box, or open a home safe. Both of those can be physically forced with the right tools and a court order.
The analogy is flawed but comes close to the problem being faced by the legal system. That problem being in the physical world the safe can be forced open, but such ability may not exist for a cryptographically protected "vault". The legal system is still trying to figure out how to deal with this issue without unduly prejudicing the defendant. Remember, in the legal system rights are weighted against each other, and the state (i.e. the embodiment of the people) has rights too, so it becomes a test of which right outweighs the other.
Load an app on your phone that will wipe the thing if a certain passcode is entered.
That would be obstruction of justice and/or destruction of evidence, so then it becomes which is worse, the penalties for destruction, or the penalties for the crime being investigated.
How about a low-tech solution of blocking the visible-under-the-windshield VIN with a piece of paper? Is that legal? It seems like it would help reduce the problems, or at least make the thieves more inclined to move on to a different vehicle.
In California it is illegal, but you can use the CA DMV website to look up the VIN if you have the license plate number, so covering the VIN would just add one more step for the crooks.
[...] possible because Jeep Wranglers allow thieves to pop the hood from the outside of the car and disable the alarm even before using their non-authenticated replacement key.
There's your main problem right there.
If you look you will find that a lot of car hoods can be opened by inserting the right tool through the grill to access the locking mechanism. It's a lot like how a slim jim can get you in through the door.
No, it won't.
Instead people will ask on board and will be pointed to the backdoor.
The internet treats such things as damage and simply routes around them.
Well, to use a car analogy, there is road construction near me right now. The businesses on the other side of the construction are significantly closer than the ones in the other direction, but I still prefer to avoid the hassle of dealing with the special twists and turns to get to my preferred places, and instead go to the farther ones since they are easier to get to.
Fact - people are lazy animals, and if you put obstacles in front of them, the vast majority of them look for the path of least resistance, even if it yields an inferior result. Blocks like this one aren't designed to block everyone, just make it painful enough that a large number won't hassle with a workaround, and because of human nature, it normally works.
He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.
