Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:You would think. . . (Score 3, Insightful) 118

... How can the RF emitted by your cell phone, observed from a public space not be legally obtained evidence? ...

it is a little different with a general radio-frequency emission. in the case where you are emitting RF voluntarily, locating and tracking that emission requires no special permissions. you are effectively yelling in a place, and they are following the sound.

in the case of the stingray, it is giving false information to your phone, and your phone is identifying itself to a 'stranger'. in this case you are still emitting RF, and they could still locate and track that emission, but without the stingray, they would not be able to identify the owner of the RF emission until they located and identified they source..

Comment Re: Don't see the problem (Score 1, Insightful) 400

The point is, Apple doesn't have this data. The phone contains the data. The phone is in the possession of the FBI, not Apple. The FBI (most likely) NOT allow Apple to posses the phone.
So, the only solution is for Apple to create an OS for the phone that bypasses the security wipe feature, allowing a brute force attack to be carried out. Why Apple would want to create, at their expense (I am a taxpayer, and I don't want to pay for this), a product with no value to the public.
Effectively, a court ordered them to do exactly that.
Now another, unlikely, solution is for the FBI to place the phone in Apple's possession, Apple then applies the newly developed OS to the phone then runs the brute force attack to decrypt the phone then changes the pin then reinstalls a factory OS and then returns the phone to the FBI along with the new pin. All at Apple's expense. Unlikely for many reasons.

Comment Re:NSA scorecard on on truth? (Score 1) 200

Excuse me, but when people represent coporations and institutions, they do indeed make such entities lie.
Especially, since they, as people, are not held personally responsible?

Only within the concept of Personification, namely treating something that isn't a person as if it is. An organization is not a person, even if it is comprised of people, and can therefore not make decisions, rather the people within it make decisions. The purpose of personification is to apply an attribute to the collective, namely in this case, for the speaker to imply that since some at the IRS and NSA lie, everyone at the IRS and NSA are liars which is clearly not the case. Or do you really believe of the tens of thousands of people employed by these agencies none of them have morals? If you do, remember that Snowden worked for them so that means, even though he left, he is by association also a liar?

If you were right, who are responsible for the lies then?

The people, who under penalty of perjury, knowingly made statements they knew to be false, or otherwise made the decisions that the laws were not to be obeyed by those within their organizations. You know, the people who are committing the crimes. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater may be a common tactic, but is as bad today as it was when that phrase was invented. The fact that in almost none of these cases have perjury or other charges been brought against them is a different problem that needs fixing.

An aside: if, by your statement, corporations (organizations) are not people, but are made up of people, then why do corporations get to have free speech? Organizations are not people, they are made up of people. People have free speech rights, organizations do not.

Comment Re:No the rich are too powerful (Score 2) 376

No federal dollars that go to Planned Parenthood go toward abortion. That is already not allowed.3% of the medical services provided by Planned Parenthood go toward abortions.

97% of the medical services go toward health care related activities, including, but not limited to: STD testing, cancer screenings, birth control (again, not federal dollars), vaccinations, inoculations ....

Sorry to have to point that out.

Comment Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? (Score 1) 1143

I'm not entirely against this rule, but I think it should be a local law not a national one. Someone in the middle of the city burning things is a pretty big asshole; someone living in a cabin in the woods isn't causing local problems and could possibly have circumstances that make the usage more understandable -- e.g., using wood that otherwise would go to waste, or using it as a back-up fuel source in case something goes wrong in the middle of winter.

An indoor stove that burns wood or coal really is dangerous, and it's most dangerous for the people inside the house. It makes you more likely to get serious, incurable lung and heart diseases.

My sealed wood stove pulls outside air for combustion and exhausts to the outside. the only time it is open to the inside is when I load it. once every 4-5 hours. I can honestly say i breath more fine particulate matter on my commute to and from work.

Comment Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? (Score 5, Insightful) 1143

It also looks like this has become a minor right-wing cause. Jack-booted thugs coming to take away your wood-burning stoves, and all that.

The right wing tends to be against regulation that erodes personal freedoms. This particular rule may or may not be a good idea, but the healthy thing for society is to look at all new regulation with a healthy dose of skepticism and suspicion.

You have got to be joking. The same right-wing that is calling for anti-abortion law across all the state where they have uncontested power? The same right-wing that is taking away the right to vote in the same states?

That right wing?

Slashdot Top Deals

A man is known by the company he organizes. -- Ambrose Bierce