Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:It's a 4th amendment issue (Score 1) 374

The constitution only says "described."

It doesn't say just described; it says particularly described

particularly (Adv) - in a particular manner; specifically; individually.

That means you can't write a search warrant that jut says "Search and seize cell phones from the person of anybody on premise."

The level of detail required is: "Search and seize iPhones belonging to Bob"

Comment Re:VeraCrypt designer is an authoritarian idiot (Score 2) 71

VeraCrypt forces long iteration on shorter passphrases (>70 sec on my laptop, i.e. unusable), regardless of how secure that passphrase actually is. There is no way to switch this off. No response on a complaint. This and some other things lead me to not trust this person. I am back to the last TrueCrypt version that does not have this brain-dead and insulting limitation.

I agree with you completely, and it's the reason I'm still using TrueCrypt.

Secure high-entropy passwords aside, what the people responding to you don't get it is that the user should be allowed to have a more convenient, but more less secure encryption solution if he chooses. I have a short, low entropy password. I could write software that would crack it and it would complete the work in a day or two. I **know** that, and I don't care. I'm not protecting state secrets with it. I'm not worried the NSA will get hold of it. I just want the random person who finds my lost USB flash drive to not have immediate access to the data. Most people wouldn't care to crack it, from those that would most wouldn't know how to go about it. In the statistically unlikely case whoever finds it both wants to crack it and is able to, the data they'll find will be disappointing to them and not a big deal to me. Some of the things I encrypt are more for privacy than security.

Basically, any decent criminal can lock-pick my front door. I still lock it, and it protects against the opportunist criminal. That's the level of security I want, and it makes no sense to tell me I can't have it. They could just pop a big red and flashing warning when I first create the volume that says, "based on the password and number of iterations you've chosen the average desktop computer would be able to crack your encrypted volume in 32 hours. Are you sure you don't want to choose a more complex password?" At that point, they've done their due diligence.

Comment Re:how about 4A (Score 4, Insightful) 374

That's not what they did.

It's more like you had a party at your house with 50 people, and the police got a warrant to search your house,
that included a clause "allowing" them to search the fingerprint-protected safe of any person who was at your party

scope that allowed them to force anyone inside the premises at the time ....

Contrast that against the Fourth amendment's requirements:

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note that the constitution requires that warrants describe particular people or things.

It's Unconstitutional and Illegal/violation of the supreme law of the land to have a "generic search" or a "generic warrant document"
allowing police to search and seize or disseminate the personal property of ANY random person they happen to find at place X.

The constitution requires they have made a specific list of people to search people, or a specific list of things to search objects not in peoples' personal affects.

Comment It's a 4th amendment issue (Score 5, Insightful) 374

Unreasonable search and seizure

A search warrant for building contents is fine.

Searching the personal affects of every person just because they happened to be present is not reasonable.

The constitution requires a specific warrant. Searching someone's person constitutionally requires that person be named in the Warrant.

Merely being present at a place of work or being at a restaurant or other public place is not probable cause for a search of someone's person.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 265

Mmm. And you can just put one of those up alongside a busy city sidewalk or next to a primary school can you?

If there's no law against you installing it, then yes you most definitely can put one in; a school being nearby doesn't affect that.

Now if it was a busy city sidewalk FIRST, and you adding that fence there is deemed a nuisance, they might be able to force you take it down, for the same reason they could force you to take down any fence you added -- forced easement (Your new fence is an eyesore or blocks a public view previously enjoyed).

City dwellers tend to not like electric fences very much, and many towns have passed a local ordinance restricting where
they can be installed to agriculturally-zoned land, OR require permits for fence projects, and may simply deny you the permit to install an electrified one.

On the other hand, if you got any required permits and had it installed it before the ordinance was passed, then the city cannot make a post-facto law to force you to remove it, provided it is on your property.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 265

Congratulations the crook that actually cut the lock, took off and received a minimal dose and you just killed someone.

You had no control of the actions that resulted in that person's death, and put a lock containing a clear warning.... the bike thief set those events into motion.

Next you'll say the shiny sports car had too much bling on it which distracted a pedestrian into kicking a dog, who then ran across the street, snatched a woman's baby, and dropped the kid down an open sewer vent where the child drowned, Therefore, having too much bling on your car makes you a baby killer.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 265

Why the heck would a police officer be cutting your bike lock unless you are illegally parked?

Destruction of the offender's property is not a legal remedy for illegal parking, anyways.

If they need to forcibly remove your bicycle, then they can get a Locksmith to make a key for the lock without
destroying your property, impound your bike AND your $100 lock, and bill you for the costs, or auction off the assets.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 265

If it's right next to a public space where a kid might accidentally touch it, you are going to be held liable if negligence.

Assuming the fence is installed correctly with a proper fence charger; coming into contact with it is just going to sting --- not capable of causing al electric shock or serious injury even to a squirrel, let-alone a kid.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 265

The electric fence you can have with proper signage is limited in amperage to about 100 mA, AND more importantly; it's not a continuous current like line power, but a small pulse of current lasting 1/300th of a second, and another pulse every second..

Therefore..... it's not even something that can kill somebody. It's not the sign that makes electric fences legal or not a boobytrap...... It's the fact that these devices have to be designed in a certain way, and they are safe.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 265

re. And if bystanders are standing by watching while someone attempts to steal a bike, they deserve to get sprayed.

That's not the law. If bystanders are harmed or killed, etc, they can potentially file charges against both the manufacturer, the bike owner, and the criminal.
And sue the manufacturer and bike owner for a large sum of $$$.

Slashdot Top Deals

The confusion of a staff member is measured by the length of his memos. -- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981