Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Some conversations are for illegal activities (Score 2) 283

[Privacy] is expected, and protected by the constitution of the United States - you know, that pesky little document you swore to uphold and defend, not mutilate and destroy.

Actually, the constitution doesn't touch on privacy rights, however, the Bill of Rights does reflect some of the spirit of the right to privacy in the sense of freedom of speech (1); privacy of the home (3); privacy from searches and seizure (4); abuse of government authority and due process (V) -- however there is no amendment that specifically states a right to privacy.

I'd agree though that the judicial branch's interpretation of the Bill of Rights is grossly out of whack. While they extend the privacy of the home (3) (specifically worded as 'No Soldier [can] be quartered in any house without consent') as extending to mean 'No agents of the State'; severely restricting law enforcement from entering the home in (nearly) any capacity. Meanwhile they interpret "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" as 'we can read your emails, personal conversations, and Netflix recommendations on demand, and if you're doing something we don't like, expect us to bust down the door.'

Moreover, the supreme court ruled in Olmstead v. United States (back in good ol' 1928) that a wiretap violated neither the 4th or 5th amendment; this set the precedent that has turned into the status quo for the government law enforcement branches... Bush then passed the Patriot Act to make us safe from the terrorists. Then the Library of Congress gets to decide that unlocking cell phones isn't allow[comment truncated due to anti-American propaganda]

Comment Re:A true and accurate and transparent lie detecto (Score 1) 456

And this poll right here is another testimony of American society as a whole being utterly mentally ill. (As has been shown by that study that compared worldwide societies, and found that all our social science studies are wrong, because they used Americans, and those are not only the exception, but the extreme exception of the exception.)

And we all know exceptionalism is a form of illness.

Comment Re:Obama in other times would be Reagan (Score 1) 409

By the sounds of things, idea generation.

This was after being a joke, as the OP was claiming BO was using Republican ideas...

In reality, they're there to help the rich get richer. Their appeal to "different cultures" is just a matter of exploiting anyone whose knees they can make jerk, so that they'll vote against their own best interests.

Nonsense. A good many Republican economic policies can also be found in the works of eminent economists like Milton Freedman and von Mises, as being the best choices for helping the lower classes. You may disagree with those economists; there are experts in the field who do. But when a good chunk of the experts in ecominics actually recommend limited regulation and low government intervention as tending more to uplifting the poor, it's a bit malicious to claim advocates of those positions are in it to hurt the poor. Much more likely, they actually believe (some of) classic liberal economics, and are trying to implement its prescriptions.

It's this sort of ridiculous emotional dismissal which makes public discourse on politics so divisive in the US. 90% of Republicans aren't rich and likely will never be. They obviously support the party for some reason. I think the reasons of 90% of the members for the party's existence trump the other 10%!

It's almost universally better to assume your opponent is arguing in good faith. He may be (very) wrong, but just assume he really means what he says. It's both more likely to be true, and permits a more persuasive argument from you. Even if he isn't, your argument will be heard by others who may be persuaded.

Comment Re:Assumptions (Score 1) 348

And would have completely failed at their intent; a robust 'insurance' policy.

I don't see any real security difference between broadcasting my data where only a few hundred arbitrary people can get it, and publishing it online. If it can be broken, and there's a significant payout in breaking it, it's fairly trivial to intercept all such banking communication through a server. If my bank's security won't protect me against anyone trying to exploit it enmass, I don't care if they publish it or not. If it will protect me from people with a significant profit motive to break it, then I don't care whether they would have to intercept it or not.

At best you have a bit more security by obscurity, which is really poor security in any event, particularly for inherently valuable information.

So far as releasing the key, they were pretty responsible. Not epicly so, but you've got to admit that standard news organizations should have policies in place to deal with encryption, etc.

What the guy at the Guardian did was ridiculous. What wikileaks did was less-than-optimal, but should have been fine if a handful of trusted clients had proved trustworthy.

Comment Re:well... (Score 1) 397

I didn't want you to cite a source for a text-to-speech converter. I want you to cite any decent source which claims "Before the early 20th century, rape was a constant. The majority of women experienced it at least once in their lives, many as adolescents. That is the consequences of a chaste society, a hell hole where people are hurt and no one talks about it."

Those are some pretty outlandish claims. (Most pre-20th century women raped? Eh?) A citation would be in order.

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman