Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Why we can have nice things... (Score 1) 505

Controlling who gets in to the country is why we can have nice things like constitutional rights.

The US under Abe Lincoln during the civil war, being a warzone had large areas where constituional rights took a backseat to military necessity.

In the interest of keeping the US not-a-warzone, we need to prevent enemies from entering. It is better to make rights violations a condition for entering than to be forced to abandon rights at all points within the jurisdiction of the US.

And anyway, the constitution only applies to the Jurisdiction of the United States. If you've no visa and are outside the US borders, you have precisely zero constitutional rights. There was a 1980s SCOTUS ruling about that, so it's a pretty solid foundation to base extreme vetting on.

If you have some prior relationship with the US such as a previous visa you MIGHT be able to make a case that you are somehow under the Jurisdiction of the United States and so due constitutional rights, but that's pretty iffy.

IMO, having read through the Koran, it seems obvious that anyone who simply does what it says would be an enemy to me personally and to the values and culture I think have been and hope will always be inherent in what it means to be American. Moderate Muslims are lying to themselves. Maybe some day they will find their way to secularity. But it's not my problem if they stay out of my country.

The constitution was written in the absense ( to a number of decimal places ) of Islam.

The absense of large numbers of Muslims is one of the reason we can have nice things like constitutional rights.

We should do what we can to defend what we have inherited from the enlightenment, and preserve it for future generations.

Comment Re: Work Mandated Method (Score 2) 247

If the spooks ( 3 letter agencies ) can get your phone, then they can copy the data. Then they can try however many times they want. You can't rely on hardware to function when they can physically open your phone and get at the wires and have the expertise and determination to do it.

It'll keep out crooks but not the spooks. The only thing they can't physically break is math.

Comment Re:Work Mandated Method (Score 1) 247

I use an 8 digit pin. I had a 4 digit pin, but I upped it to 8 to make brute force hacking into it probably too difficult for a crook to do.

I wish I could easily make android more secure by having a long device decryption passphrase that I type in when I turn it on and then a pin for when it's on.

I am not typing in a long device decryption passphrase every time I unlock it. But it would be nice to be able to shut your phone off quickly and know getting in there is impossible for anyone before the sun burns out.

There is a way to set this up, but I think it requires rooting the phone which means I can't do it since I have to have Good installed for work which doesn't work if the phone is rooted.

Comment Re: Streaming Sites Illegal, Not Links to Them (Score 1) 48

I am thinking in particular of 123moviesfree.whateverthetldtheyhavetodayis

They live behind Cloudflare and presumably pay money to them for the bandwidth to stream movies illegally.

Also things like that do the same.

I must admit I use these things and often it's stuff that I have access to but which doesn't work. For instance I subscribed to Funimation's site because my daughter loves anime. But the site is so slow that the movies are unwatchable. I guess since the same stuff is available illegally for free on I don't feel guilty since a legal site has my cash even if the site itself doesn't actually deliver what I paid for.

Also 123movies works more reliably than Netflix. Even if the movie is available on netflix, I tend to watch it from 123movies.

If I was a total leech I'd just cancel all my paid subscriptions to shit and watch everything illegally with no ads.

In fact I wonder how these illegal sites can provide such excellent bandwidth/reliablilty without making any money. My adblocker seems to block all their ads.

I wonder if it is a state actor funding these things to attack hollywood.

If so, I don't mind. I tend to hate Hollywood with a burning white hot passion these days.

I will pay for shit if I care it gets made on amazon or whatever. Or patreon. There's nothing that's worth watching that needs a budget too big for the honor system.

Comment Re:Why not automatic voice encryption? (Score 1) 519

Well there could be a web of trust or at least what we have with Certificate Authorities and HTTPS.

And web of trust exchange would be easy with phones - maybe scan one of those codes.

Even if the CAs are compromised, they wouldn't be able to use information gleaned without giving up the fact they have compromised the CAs.

Comment Why not automatic voice encryption? (Score 1) 519

Why is it that wiretaps still exist? Why doesn't every phone negotiate the highest possible encryption level with the other phone it is connected to? Then whoever you call you get the highest encryption supported by their phone, and wiretap is impossible.

You could have your phone warning beep if the other phone doesn't support secure connection.

Why isn't this built into just about every phone?

Comment Re:More than a few questions (Score 1) 983

Who cares if they blew the guy up? By shooting, up cops you've already moved the debate into ad baculum. It's combat. And sometimes the cops have to do that. It all worked out for the best, and you can complain about rules etc, but nobody has both the will and standing to legitimately argue it.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 983

He's certainly a threat if he gets away or is not contained. Having him there limits the police's options. There could very well have been a riot, and if there were they would have to retreat or fight a pitched battle with the rioters which would lead to lots of people being injured or maybe killed, or to the gunman getting away ( and he was a threat, we can't have him geting away and doing something like this again ). If the police were going to fight a pitched battle, better with him than some misguided protesters who haven't actually killed anyone.

Comment Re:More than a few questions (Score 3, Insightful) 983

I say ethics does work that way - in this narrow case it all worked out for the best. Can't argue with success.

If he wanted to defend himself in a court, he could have surrendered. By remaining a beligerant he forfeits that right.

It would really serve no purpose for the cops to take off their I am a cop hat and put on an I am a military guy hat. In fact there is some overlap between what the cops and what the military do. The cops even generally have militaryesque ranks and chains of command etc.

Comment Re:More than a few questions (Score 1) 983

Meh, in this narrow case, who cares? Go ahead and litigate it in your mind to the extreme, the guy is basically a beligerent at war with the US. In the end, the result is the same and also the ethics. Think of how many Americans Abraham Lincoln had targeted and killed, and a good thing too.

Comment Re:#BlackLivesMatter (Score 2) 983

Not sure if BLM is a movement with leaders or something more like Anonymous. More than likely those BLM supporters who want to kill cops are the minority.

Still I hardly hear a peep from them about cases where the cop does wrong and is prosecuted and ends up convicted of a crime ( or when everyone fully expects that and the cop is sitting in jail ). I hear the noise from BLM about cases where the cop most likely won't suffer any legal sanctions.

Therefore, if we generally expect the legal system to come to correct conclusions, then we would expect BLM to be generally wrong about the cases that anger them.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is an unauthorized cybernetic announcement.