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:Public information? (Score 1) 89

No, I'll still be the first to assert that private communication has a genuine expectation of privacy, and law enforcement has no right to monitor that without probable cause and a warrant. As I said above.

But what you say in public is public. If someone wants to scrape it all and analyze it, well, you made it all public. You said it to the general public, and the general public has the right to do what they will with it. Including analysis.

You don't get to on one hand shout out something to the public and on the other hand expect it to be private. You can have one or the other. Not both.

Comment Re:Public information? (Score 1) 89

No, it differs from Stingray in that fundamental respect.

Cell phone conversations are presumed to be private. If you make a cell phone call from a private place, to someone else who is also in a private place, you most certainly have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that call. But Stingray could be intercepting that.

On the other hand, when I post this on Slashdot, I can't reasonably expect that to be private. I'm posting it for anyone who wants to read it.

That's the fundamental difference. It's the difference between someone using a long zoom to take photos through your bedroom window, and you happening to appear on a security tape when you go to the grocery store. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your bedroom. You don't in the grocery store.

Comment Re:Public information? (Score 1) 89

Well, just like it's Twitter's service, it's their API. They can restrict access to it in any way and for any reason they see fit.

If you're in public and attracting attention, it's foolish to presume you're not being recorded. With everyone having an audio and video recorder in their pocket, as well as the massive number of stationary recording devices, chances are good you probably are being recorded at any given time, especially if you're attracting attention. The stenographer would be largely redundant. You can consider that good, bad, or mixed, but such is the world we live in.

Comment Re:Public information? (Score 1) 89

It's certainly my hope that Twitter's API doesn't allow access to private or "whitelist only" communication. If it does, that's a problem that goes well beyond this one instance. I can't say I'm terribly familiar with it myself, but I imagine if it had massive security flaws in it like that, we'd have heard about it by now. And if it does and we haven't, we certainly should.

As far as allowing access by non-blocked or logged in only users, that's such a low bar that you're still speaking publicly. For the blocked users, it would be equivalent to that speaker on the soapbox having a restraining order against someone. That one person (or even more than one person) can't come to hear them speak, but everyone else in the world still can. That is, for all intents and purposes, still speaking to the general public.

Comment Re:Enforcing rights (Score 1) 89

I could see that to a degree. But that's a different question.

Right now, the First Amendment only covers government action. The Fourth does too. Now, when the government was seeking records, that absolutely should implicate the Fourth Amendment. That should similarly happen with the First if it's the government asking for certain types of speech to be disallowed somewhere.

But the Fourteenth and Nineteenth don't create those employment and public accommodation laws. They, too, only restrict the government. It's laws, like the Civil Rights Act, that put into place the actual protections against discrimination by private actors.

I'm not sure how the constitutionality of requiring Twitter, or Slashdot, or any other platform to let anyone use its services without restriction would come out. I suspect they could readily argue that it violates freedom of association; that they have the right not to be associated with those people, and to kick them off their property. But there might be some success in making "political persuasion" a protected class. Of course, the lawsuits over what exactly falls under that would be nothing if not endless.

But realistically, I think the whole thing is overblown. I saw tons and tons of pro-Trump stuff on social media. Trump himself was certainly never barred from using Twitter, and does so to this day. If Facebook won't even stop flat out lies masquerading as news from being posted, I think they're being pretty permissive.

Comment Public information? (Score 4, Insightful) 89

I don't have any sympathy for secret spy schemes or the mass warrantless interception of private data or communications. The people behind those belong in jail.

But Twitter isn't a private communication. It's public. When you stand up on a soapbox on the street corner and start shouting, yes, that's your free speech right. But a cop can stand there and listen to what you say, even record it if they want. It's a public place.

If you want to communicate privately, use a private medium. The police should certainly be disallowed from monitoring that without probable cause and a proper warrant. But you can't on one hand put something out there to the general public, and on the other expect it to stay private. People need to stop having the illusion that what they post publicly on the Internet has any reasonable expectation of privacy.

The actual problem is this:

The proposal’s terms and conditions stipulate that agencies using the platform must avoid disclosure of the Media Sonar brand or methodology, instead of (sic) encouraging clients to refer to the software as a “proprietary search engine” or “internet tools” in court. The company goes on to state that “general widespread media attention to the platform could result in a significant decrease in efficacy and the overall business model.”

No, no, and no. If you want to use evidence in court, you must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, including the specifics of how you gathered it. All of that should be available for the opposing party to challenge; that's part of their due process rights. If you don't want to reveal the method of gathering it, you don't get to use the evidence. If you want to defend it as legitimate when challenged, you must reveal the details to show that it in fact is. You don't just get to say "No, it's fine, we promise."

Comment Re:Resource Management - Death by Design. (Score 1) 458

Even if it is by design, it does not explain why the numbers are going down.
Even if tobacco would take 50% of all deaths and we have a lottery that takes out another 25%, the number can still grow.
So unless you show me what the percentage of tobacco death are during the years they are talking about, it means nothing in this context.
It does not explain why the numbers are starting to get lower. It explains why they are high as they are, but not the change, unless you have numbers that back it up.

You should also look to other countries and see what the reason might be.

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 180

To me VW passed the tests. To me the tests where at fault. And this was possible all along. You get updates for your phone on a regular basis, sop they can introduce any code they desire.
But why do that with updates? Just program it in from the beginning. Make it crash when it is EOL+2months.

Comment Hahahaha (Score 1) 48

Sorry, Hahahahaha, Again sorry.

neither country would knowingly carry out hacking for commercial advantages

WTF did they thought was going to happen? It is also nice to see that it IS allowed to hack others knowingly, only if companies are involved you should not do it. At least not on purpose to make money. Otherwise? Totes ok!

I also like the spin "You can not hack companies for gain because terrorism" or so it sounds.

Comment Tripple dipping (Score 1) 101

1) You obviously have to pay extreme roaming prices. And it does not matter if it is a call over your own provider. They will see to it that you pay extra and a lot extra. As they are flying all other pricing regulations will be deemed void, regardless that other places are not allowed to do the same, because they are on the ground (e.g. no roaming cost or blocking in malls or conference centers)
2) If you want to book a seat where you can do calls, you need to book extra
3) If you want to book a seat where people are not calling, you need to pay extra
4) To pay for the systems to be installed, prices will increase to pay for it, regardless if you use it or not or if it is even needed or not.
5) You will be spammed 10 minutes after you get in the plane.

OK, 4 and 5 might be a bit over the tom but 1, 2 and 3 are things I could see happening.

Slashdot Top Deals

egrep patterns are full regular expressions; it uses a fast deterministic algorithm that sometimes needs exponential space. -- unix manuals