Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Submission + - French bill carries 5-year jail sentence for company refusals to decrypt data fo (dailydot.com)

Patrick O'Neill writes: Employees of companies in France that refuse to decrypt data for police can go to prison for five years under new legislation from conservative legislators. The punishment for refusing to hand over access to encrypted data is a five year jail sentence and $380,000 fine. Telecom companies would face their own penalties, including up to two years in jail. French politicians criticized American companies in particular: "They deliberately use the argument of public freedoms to make money knowing full well that the encryption used to drug traffickers, to serious [criminals] and especially to terrorists. It is unacceptable that the state loses any control over encryption and, in fact, be the subject of manipulation by U.S. multinationals.”

Comment Odd Issues (Score 1) 217

I've been running my own mail server for a year or two now, the only places I've had reject my mail have been small businesses/organizations that have more restrictive policies. I haven't been flagged as spam on outlook.com, gmail, or yahoo mail and even my workplace's server has accepted them. Perhaps this person got flagged early on as a spam source and didn't realize it?

Comment Re: I cannot prove it, but I can say it? (Score 1) 302

In Kansas? Not the Taxi companies. You've got to remember, Kansas doesn't have much in the way of "cities", so the taxi companies are actually much poorer than Uber. It adds costs and complexity to their operations as well. Personally, I have no issue with this law. Professional drivers should have stricter insurance requirements than non-professionals. Remember, all it takes to be a professional is being payed for the action. That means Uber drivers are professional, whether they want to call them that is irrelevant. There needs to be some kind of assurance behind these random people carting around. (Besides, Brownback vetoed the bill, so it can't be too bad)

Comment Re: SAVE US AND THE WEB FROM MOZILLA! (Score 1) 324

Real world example time.

If Tim Cook were to say he disapproves of gay marriage, would the Apple board of directors fire him? I honestly don't know. What I do know is, if he was fired, it wouldn't be because the board members personal beliefs. In fact, I'd bet some of the board members that pressured Eich to resign agreed with his stance. The fact of the matter is, having him as the face and head of the organization was costing them money. You can argue whether or not the boycott was right, but you would've made the same decision if you were on that board.

So, would Apple fire Tim Cook if he said he was against gay marriage? I can't say for sure, but given Apple's userbase, I bet the answer would be yes.

Comment Re:Not Censorship (Score 5, Insightful) 285

The government saying that you can not publish something is censorship.

You must be working from a different dictionary than me. Censorship is when something is deleted or hidden from view. There is no requirement on who is the one doing it.
If I decide not to say "fuck" in this post and replace it with "fudge", that's self censoring.
If a newspaper removes the word "fuck" from a letter to the editor, the newspaper is censoring.
If Google hides all adult content from view, Google is censoring.
If the Government tells a newspaper they can't run an article critical of it, the Government is censoring.
Only one of these things is illegal.
Just because Google is censoring adult themed websites doesn't make it wrong or illegal. You can't decide that a word means less than it does just because you don't like the connotations.

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...