Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Forcing you to aid in a search (Score 1) 205

Can't you just say one or a combination of the following:

a) You don't remember what finger you used b) You used someone else's finger c) Let them "have" your hand but use the wrong fingers or make them guess what finger is correct d) Use the correct finger but do it incorrectly such that the device won't unlock e) say you never properly set a fingerprint id f) Or, and this is actually true for me, I pick my fingers and the fingerprint id doesn't work because my prints are not exactly the same for very long (and they were in a not-natural state when the passcode was set so it would be impossible to compel me to not pick at my fingers to gain access)

Or in other words - how can a court compel this when the court doesn't even know what they are compelling. Seems to me the easiest thing to do is say you never properly authenticated any of your fingers and thus are unable to comply. If they force you to try all your fingers - just do it wrong. We all know how finicky these devices are and it would seem easy to purposely incorrectly authenticate or damage your print enough to cause a failure.

  1. a) Could get you charged for lying to investigators, which is a crime
  2. b) See a
  3. c) Or just ask "which finger" - They have a 50% chance of selecting the right one before the iPhone reverts to passwords
  4. d) They'll just keep trying, but again only get 5 tries
  5. e) See a
  6. f) This is the best advice - use a password, not your fingerprint.
  7. There's a youtube video of a girl trying to get into her boyfriends phone while he's asleep. She tries one hand, then the other, then other fingers, and finally gives up and leaves. The guy then wakes up, takes off his shoe and unlocks his phone with his toe. Hilarious!

    So just use your toe. They'll never figure that one out.

Comment Re:Fingerprints are protected in Europe (Score 1) 205

In Europe, we understand that, in this context, a fingerprint is equivalent to a password and deserves to be protected as such. You dumb fat Americans really should extend the same protections to fingerprints in this context.

Europeans don't know the difference between something you have and something you know. No wonder Great Britain wants out.

Comment Re:Forcing you to aid in a search (Score 4, Informative) 205

your fingerprints aren't a testimony against yourself. Read the damn thing. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Your fingerprints absolutely can be evidence against you. That's not even a question. The police have a long established right to take your fingerprints when you are arrested and to compare them with gathered evidence.

That said I have a hard time reconciling this with the right against self incrimination in the Constitution. In principle I feel a biometric pass code should be legally no different than a memorized one. Either way you are being forced to potentially incriminate yourself. But I suspect that the legal system will rule that they are different and so if you want your phone to be secure against search and seizure you must avoid biometric pass codes unfortunately. The problem here is that they are not comparing your fingerprints against evidence they have found. They are in effect forcing you to open a lock on their behalf. I don't have a problem with them having the right to search but I don't see why the target of the investigation should be forced to aid in that search. If they can break down a door to do a search (with a warrant) then have that right but I don't see why I should have to hand over the key to the house so to speak.

Courts have long held that you are required (once a proper warrant has been issued) to provide keys to any lock (such as a safe) that is the subject of search or evidence. However, you cannot be compelled to provide the combination of a safe that is secured that way. So they're using the same principle. Your fingerprint is something that you HAVE, so you can be required to provide it. A combination or password is something that you KNOW, and you're allowed to keep your mental secrets secret.

Comment Re:Better idea (but unpopular) (Score 1) 205

Don't break the law. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed.

Unpossible. There are so many laws that can be interpreted in so many ways, if an agent wants to pin something on you, they WILL find something. It has been widely reported that the average American commits 3 felonies a day, without even knowing it.

Comment Re:TFA is not terribly clear... (Score 3, Insightful) 205

If you routinely destroy evidence to avoid implicating yourself in a crime, I think the intent is pretty clear.

But that's perfectly legal. That is, you're destroying documents or files (something routinely done everywhere, all the time), which is not currently "evidence". If you think you're under investigation, or have some reason to believe you might be investigated, then you are not allowed to destroy or tamper with any evidence. But, if you're in the habit of routinely wiping your devices and files, it would be difficult or impossible to prove that in some specific incident you knowingly did it to tamper with evidence.

So routinely wiping your data is a good strategy.

Comment Re:unpasteurised milk is way better (Score 1) 255

It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk". Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk: - http://www.webmd.com/food-reci... [webmd.com]

I suggest you Google about webmd and their funding (big pharma) and propaganda (promotions from grants). WebMD is paid by the FDA, which receives its funding from big pharma and, yes, the corporate farming lobby. So by posting propaganda from WebMD, you're supporting MY argument, not your own.

The article you linked was not a study, did not link to any study. It was a (poorly done) article about a report prepared for politicians (who, of course, have an agenda). There is no link to the report, no reference to the "81 studies" that the "researchers" selected to support their position (a conclusion that they were paid to support). No science there at all.

All the actual peer-reviewed articles you posted referred to raw-milk cheese, and mostly specific anecdotes of specific outbreaks, and primarily outside the US. So, pretty irrelevant, especially considering that any process where you INTENTIONALLY GROW BACTERIA can certainly go wrong in many ways.

Comment Re:unpasteurised milk is way better (Score 1) 255

I have drank raw milk since 2011, and it has kept me strong and healthy.

OK. You don't know that. I appreciate your fetish for fucked up smelling gloopy milk, which of course you're welcome to - but that's the bit that you seriously do not know.

You should try it some time. If you're used to the watery, ultra pasteurized, hormone-laden milk from factory cows caged and injected with chemicals and bacteria, you may not know what milk is really supposed to taste like. It's really very delicious, smells wonderful, and is actually creamy, not gloopy.

Comment Re:unpasteurised milk is way better (Score 1) 255

There's absolutely no evidence for that. In fact incidents of food-borne illness are significantly higher for practitioners of the new-age "raw milk" psycho-babble.

Thanks for repeating our propaganda. We'd send you a check for your support, but we sent all our money to the FDA and the former FDA administrators that now have positions on our board.

--- Signed, The Corporate Dairy Council

Comment Re:unpasteurised milk is way better (Score 1) 255

That's right. Raw, or unpasteurized milk, is much better. It builds a strong healthy body.

I drank it for a year or two, as a member of a "cow share" cooperative. I didn't re-up the last time, so I don't drink it any more.

The next best thing is the pasture-fed "organic" (hormone free) milk from the grocery store. Interestingly, that stuff normally comes "Ultrapasturized", and the shelf life on it is at least 4-5 weeks. So I'm not sure what advantage this process brings.

Comment Re: Unfettered capitalism (Score 1) 637

On the flip side, it was government intervention that forced the automobile manufacturers to play nice with the independent repair shops and after market parts manufacturers. Even the fact that my OBD II reader will mostly work on most any (sold in N. American, not sure about other markets) car built from the mid '90's on is due to government intervention.

Only so they could monitor the mandated emissions controls that manufacturers were required to add to cars in the first place. It had nothing to do with wanting to help you diagnose your car - just the emissions controls. So it was a solution to help fix something that was only broken because of the initial government mandate. Still, they did get that "solution" right. Gotta give them credit for that, especially since most of the "solutions" government creates cause more problems than the ones they are intended to resolve.

Comment Re:Unfettered capitalism (Score 3, Informative) 637

So you're in favor of a system without copyright laws?

I said nothing about what I'm "in favor" of or not. I expressed no opinion, only facts.

However, since you asked, I'll expound on what (in my opinion) I see as how copyright can be used productively, in the modern age, and actually be used for it's purpose as stated in the Constitution (that is, "... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"). First, it should be significantly shorter. Lifetime of the author is a new innovation, and quite long enough. +70 years is far too long. 95 years for works-for-hire seems too long as well. 50 years seems more than reasonable. Some would want more, some less. The length is debatable, and, more importantly should be debated

Are there still countries where foreign copyrights are not honored at all? The US was one of those countries when it was first formed, but of course it no longer is. What would it be like if we abandoned copyright completely? Of course, there are many that claim that no books or music or stories or art would be created. That's a bogus argument. Artists will always create what they want - they did long before "copyright" was invented. They had patrons that sponsored their work (similar to the way research grants support much of pure science today).

Another idea would be to only allow individuals to be granted copyrights, but not corporations or "works for hire". That would probably eliminate most of the big movies and TV shows created by Hollywood and media conglomerates. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, but it would certainly create a major backlash, as well as chaos in multiple financial markets (what else does the US export these days??).

What we currently have is a lot of laws on top of copyright, intended to enforce the copyright rules for large / wealthy copyright holders. Let's be clear: The DMCA really only works well for large / wealth copyright holders, mostly corporations. There are multiple problems with this. Note, to start with, that copyright infringement is not and never has been a crime. It's a tort. Meaning, if someone wants to protect their copyright, they must file suit in civil court to do so. There is no criminal court, there are no law enforcement involved, there is no criminal investigation. What the DMCA and other recent "innovations" in copyright enforcement has done is to shift the burden of enforcement from the beneficiaries of copyright to the public (through taxation and use of law enforcement resources). That significantly shifts the costs and the power dynamic of the entire system. The FBI does NOT pursue cases of infringement for Joe J. Writer, who sells his novel online but keeps seeing people sharing his work without his permission. But these days the DO pursue cases for Disney and Viacom for people doing the exact same thing for their work. And this in a system where Joe J. Writer cannot afford his own investigators and lawyers to pursue lawsuits, but Disney and Viacom absolutely CAN.

I don't have any specific recommendations on whether a system without copyright laws can work. But I do know that the current copyright laws, and all the other laws and ways they are currently enforced, is not working.

Does that answer your question?

Slashdot Top Deals

Garbage In -- Gospel Out.

Working...