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

 



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

Comment Re:You missed a couple of sections (Score 1) 309

In finding no Fourth
Amendment violation, the Western District of Washington noted that "in order for [] prospective
user[s] to use the Tor network they must disclose information, including their IP addresses, to
unknown individuals running Tor nodes, so that their communications can be directed toward
their destinations." Id. at *2. The Western District of Washington noted that under "such a
system, an individual would necessarily be disclosing his identifying information to complete
strangers."

Sounds like it makes sense to me

Thus, hacking resembles the broken blinds in Carter. 525 U.S. at 85. Just as Justice
Breyer wrote in concurrence that a police officer who peers through broken blinds does not
violate anyone's Fourth Amendment rights, jd. at 103 (Breyer, J., concurring), FBI agents who
exploit a vulnerability in an online network do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Just as the
area into which the officer in Carter peered - an apartment - usually is afforded Fourth
52
Case 4:16-cr-00016-HCM-RJK Document 90 Filed 06/23/16 Page 52 of 58 PageID# 1134
Amendment protection, a computer afforded Fourth Amendment protection in other
circumstances is not protected from Government actors who take advantage of an easily broken
system to peer into a user's computer. People who traverse the Internet ordinarily understand the
risk associated with doing so

Well yeah if you don't patch your system, you know you're going to get hacked right? So, boohoo, you got hacked by the gov should have been surfing kiddy porn

Comment Re:You missed a couple of sections (Score 1) 309

"Furthermore, the Court FINDS suppression unwarranted because the Government did not need a warrant in this case. Thus, any potential defects in the issuance of the warrant or in the warrant itself could not result in constitutional violations".

This language is particularly specific and narrows the ruling to this case and only this case. The fact that the FBI got a warrant to allow them to run remote exploit code on an individual's computers that had downloaded the exploit (which was only available on PlayPen) means that they didn't need a warrant.

The individual was exposing himself to this exploit of his own actions, and thus didn't require a warrant. Let me put it this way, the FBI takes over a drug dealer, and has him continue sale, but under the new watchful eye of cameras that collect identifying photos of individuals who purchase drugs. (Not only that, but the person has to go into a room that specifically says, “illegal drugs” on it in order to even end up on camera.)

Do law enforcement REALLY need a warrant when the person is incriminating themselves?

This is like arguing that law enforcement had no right to put a tracker in the cash bag of a bank that they took. It's BS. It required active agency in acquiring the exploit code, and a clear intent to obtain child pornography.

a) You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're committing a crime, and b) if you walk into someone else's house and demonstrate direct intent to commit a crime without knowing that you're identifying yourself to police, well, TOO BAD

Comment Re:The message is clear: (Score 1) 309

The site was actually protected by the Tor network (and despite an error in configuration allowing it to be accessed outside of Tor for a bit) was only available through the Tor network.

They then attached the callback program to trigger upon downloading known child porn, and voila your computer happily reports to the FBI that you've just downloaded child porn.

This is actually pretty solid law, and entirely reasonable warrant and execution of that warrant

It looks like (so far, I'm only part way through the actual ruling) one of the chief objections is that the warrant identified the website with the wrong type of logo. The text on that logo, had however stayed the same. This is not a good argument for why a warrant shouldn't be valid

Comment Re:What Constitution? (Score 1) 309

Even though the warrant authorized the FBI to deploy the NIT as soon as a user logged
into Playpen, SA Alfin testified that the Government did not deploy the NIT against Mr. Matish
in this particular case until after someone with the username of "Broden" logged into Playpen,
arrived at the index site, went to the bestiality section - which advertised prepubescent children
engaged in sexual activities with animals - and clicked on the post titled "Girl 11YO, with dog."
In other words, the agents took the extra precaution of not deploying the NIT until the user first
logged into Playpen and second entered into a section of Playpen which actually displayed child
pornography. At this point, testified SA Alfin, the user apparently downloaded child
pornography as well as the NIT to his computer. Thus, the FBI deployed the NIT in a much
narrower fashion than what the warrant authorized.

I dunno, that's pretty compelling reasonable suspicion there for a warrant which is what they actually had

Comment Re:We need a penalty for retarded judges (Score 1) 309

The Court FINDS, for the reasons stated herein, that probable cause supported
the warrant's issuance, that the warrant was sufficiently specific, that the triggering event
occurred, that Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing, and that the magistrate judge did not
exceed her jurisdiction or authority in issuing the warrant

So you think supporting the validity of a warrant that was issued prior to the search to be subversive?

Comment Re:What Constitution? (Score 1) 309

To any sane person, if they need a warrant to come through your door to seize the data, they need a warrant to seize the data over the wire.

Let's examine that, let's see

The Court FINDS, for the reasons stated herein, that probable cause supported
the warrant's issuance, that the warrant was sufficiently specific, that the triggering event
occurred, that Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing, and that the magistrate judge did not
exceed her jurisdiction or authority in issuing the warrant

Oh, they did have a warrant.

Comment The Missing Post (Score 5, Informative) 133

He posted a blog post yesterday and it's currently cached but essentially he promises to move BTC from early blocks to do the final verification. This was up yesterday before his stupid wah wah redirect went up. I'm reposting it here in case it's ever removed from google cache (I hate scammers):

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof
May 3, 2016
ExtraordinaryClaims

Yesterday, Andreas Antonopoulos posted a fantastic piece on Reddit.

Andreas said something critically important and it bears repeating: “I think the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto does not matter”.

He’s absolutely right.

It doesn’t – and shouldn’t – matter to the Bitcoin community.

I cannot deny that my interest in bringing the origins of Bitcoin into the light is ultimately and undeniably a selfish one – the only person to whom this should matter is me. In the wake of the articles last December in which I was ‘outed’, I still believed that I could remain silent. I still believed that I could retreat into anonymity, sever contact, go quiet, and that the storm would eventually pass and life would return to normal. I was right and wrong. The story did eventually retreat, but not before it ‘turned’ and the allegations of fraud and hoax (not to mention personal threats and slurs against me and my family) clung to me.

I now know that I can never go back.

So, I must go through to go forward.

Mr. Antonopoulos’ post also notes that if Satoshi wants to prove identity, “they don’t need an “authority” to do so. They can do it in a public, open manner.” This is absolutely true, but not necessarily complete. I can prove access to the early keys and I can and will do so by moving bitcoin, but this should be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for such an extraordinary claim.

And this is why I wanted to speak with Gavin weeks ago. Gavin was in a unique position as we dealt with each other directly while we nurtured Bitcoin to life in 2010. I knew that Gavin would remember the content of those messages and discussions, and would recall our arguments and early interactions. I wanted to speak with Gavin first, not to appeal to his authority, but because I wanted him to know. I owed him that. It was important to me that we could re-establish our relationship. Simply signing messages or moving bitcoin would never be enough for Gavin.

And it should not be enough for anyone else.

So, over the coming days, I will be posting a series of pieces that will lay the foundations for this extraordinary claim, which will include posting independently-verifiable documents and evidence addressing some of the false allegations that have been levelled, and transferring bitcoin from an early block.

For some there is no burden of proof high enough, no evidence that cannot be dismissed as fabrication or manipulation. This is the nature of belief and swimming against this current would be futile.

You should be sceptical. You should question. I would.

I will present what I believe to be “extraordinary proof” and ask only that it be independently validated.

Ultimately, I can do no more than that.

Comment If Only There Was a Website to Answer That! (Score 4, Insightful) 106

This raises one question: Is China's Great Firewall that easy to circumvent, or are members of the government treated differently than normal citizens?

If only we had a website the covered this sort of stuff ... oh right, we do! New VPN IP addresses probably take a while for them to identify the traffic on and block. But there are plenty of services like HMA that constantly roll out new ip addresses. So as long as you're a mouse willing to play whackamole with your cat overlords ... Annoying, yes, but that's the definition of the internet in China.

In response to the second part, that is always true regardless of the answer to the first part. Not only are members of the government are treated differently but also their families. The "party" class enjoys many many perks. Unmonitored VPN connections would be laughable compared to their insider trading, disregard for the law and instant attack dogs they routinely utilize.

While you're accepting suggestions, why isn't my aforementioned article linked in the "You may like to read:" section of this page? Those stories seem to have nothing to do with China's firewall yet a simple google search shows a whole slew of those stories on Slashdot. I think you could get timothy's family to help you track that stuff if you would return his body to them. They only want closure, it doesn't matter if it has to be a closed casket funeral!

Comment Re:Of course (Score 1) 99

Some of this article is outright wrong. Specifically, that Type 1 Diabetics over-produce glucagon. http://www.diabetesselfmanagem... Also, a common factor in T2D individuals is that their muscles are starting to store fat. Your link fails to account for any of that. Now, as for how it's wrong about T1D (I should know, I am one):

Glucagon is prescribed as an emergency injection for hypoglycemia. If the body of a T1D would be consistently putting out glucagon, then glucagon would be worthless as an emergency injection of it.

Now, that said, T1D react differently when insulin levels are low (which since they are not making any/enough of their own, means not injecting any/enough.) As a result of low insulin, the body stops being able to use the glucose that is available. The body cannot recognize a difference between too little insulin, and too little glucose. As a result, the body starts starving, even though the body is full of glucose. As a result the body starts responding as would any starving person: upregulation of glucagon to have the liver produce more glucose, to meet the body's needs.

But remember, the body already has plenty of glucose, just no insulin to make use of it. So thus, the liver just keeps dumping more and more glucose into the system, which isn't being used, and it builds up. At the same time, it's making ketones for other fuel. As the glucose and ketone levels rise, it starts to make the body acidic, which is buffered by bicarb, until the bicarb stores are depleted, and then the body starts going in to acidosis.

There are some T1D who regulate their glucose levels with a ketogenic diet. After the glycogen levels in the liver are depleted, it can't raise the BG in response to starvation, which leads to an easier to manage BG level. However, for these individuals, glucagon injections will not help them with a hypo. But since their body normally has largely switched over to ketone metabolism, they're unlikely to experience hypos anyways.

Comment Re: Of course (Score 1) 99

Well, really anything that breaks the cycle works great. But yeah, keto is a good choice because it specifically reduces carb intake, which leaves the liver as the only source of glucose in the body.

This definitely can rest the insulin response and help reset it.

Comment Re:Wink Wink (Score 3, Informative) 36

Eh... this is more of a “we look forward to F/OSS developers developing ways of ensuring region coding matches the installing firmware.”

They're not really locking anything, they're just adding a region-locking value that must match before the image is flashed. Honestly, you could just work around this by providing the same image with all the different region-codes.

But I think they're hoping that the F/OSS community will develop a way of ensuring that specific region-codes get a specific firmware that ensures it complies with the RF transmission regulations of that region.

Comment Re:require markings for region locking (Score 1) 36

One should be aware that different countries have different regulations. Often those regulations concern RF transmitters and the like.

Unless someone or something tells you that your RF transmitting device will work in a foreign country, you should presume that it either a) won't. or b) would be against their regulations.

Comment Re:Of course (Score 4, Interesting) 99

As I noted on the FB page, Type 2 Diabetes tends to be caused by a feedback loop of insulin insensitivity increasing insulin secretion causing increased insensitivity.

Just a little nudge out of that feedback loop can do incredible amounts of good. All you have to do is just break that cycle, and you can potentially walk away from having to constantly worry about your blood sugar. (But of course, much like weight loss, T2D requires a lifestyle change to keep away. It's not a 'take this pill, you're cured!' it's more of a 'pay more attention to your diet regardless, and eat better for the rest of your life.' ... which as the argument I've seen goes, it's a question of which is better or worse.

This reminds me that a T1D can get a pancreas implant, and then no/reduced need of insulin for years... but then you have to take antirejection drugs and all the wonderful side effects of transplants... so which is worse, the cure or the chronic pedantic busy work being your own pancreas...

Comment Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... (Score 1) 539

I've tried to find an article about this recently, but haven't been able to find the article that I read. But it turns out Google actually has your data collection lie to Google on a regular occasion. They get enough data that the lies shift out in the statistics, and in addition, no one at Google can actually trust specific data that you've sent Google...

Slashdot Top Deals

Recent investments will yield a slight profit.

Working...