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. ×

Submission + - Feds Demand Everyone's Fingerprints To Open Phones (forbes.com)

ArtemaOne writes: Under the Fourth Amendment, Americans are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, but according to one group of federal prosecutors, just being in the wrong house at the wrong time is cause enough to make every single person inside provide their fingerprints and unlock their phones.

Back in 2014, a Virginia Circuit Court ruled that while suspects cannot be forced to provide phone passcodes, biometric data like fingerprints doesn’t have the same constitutional protection. Since then, multiple law enforcement agencies have tried to force individual suspects to unlock their phones with their fingers, but none have claimed the sweeping authority found in a Justice Department memorandum recently uncovered by Forbes.

Submission + - SPAM: FBI agents dismayed by failure to charge Clinton

Okian Warrior writes: The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved claiming that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

Link to Original Source

Submission + - "Clinton Is Not the Tech Privacy Candidate. Not Your Privacy Anyway." (reason.com)

Nova Express writes: The lengths Hillary Clinton has gone to in order to protect her own tech privacy are well documented. Protecting the tech privacy of ordinary American privacy? Not so much. "Amid the dump of hacked emails from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta are bits and pieces of discussion that help indicate her mindset on citizen privacy and the use of encryption to protect data." When asked to come out for privacy, the Clinton campaign demurred. "When a top politician appears to take an uninvolved stance in a conflict between the executive branch and private citizens or companies, don't mistake it as neutrality. It's deference to authority. As a candidate running to be in charge of the executive branch, 'staying out of it' is really approval for the Department of Justice to push the issue to see what would happen."

Comment Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! (Score 1) 331

Have fun cleaning your gun then. Because unless you can successfully clear it and declare it safe, you can't clean it.

Or, as in Australia where firearms must be stored unloaded in a safe, unless you can successfully clear it and declare it safe, you can't store it.

You're 100% wrong. Firearms can be rendered safe. Not pointing unloaded (safe) firearms at people is a habitual thing and a courtesy. Without cartridges in them they are lumps of steel, wood, and plastic that cannot do anything.

Comment Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! (Score 1) 331

No they don't. The majority of studies, and all meta analysis concluded the firearm law changes did not affect Australia's firearm (and total) death rate. Firearms are readily available in Australia. The vast majority of the population can purchase semi-automatic handguns, bolt action, pump action, and lever action rifles, break open and lever action shotguns, etc.

Look at New Zealand. They have the most similar culture and living conditions to Australia than any other country in the world. In 1997 (when Australia's firearm laws changed) they did not change theirs. Consequentially you can purchase semi-auto handguns and rifles and high capacity magazines. Yet over the last 20 years their homicide by firearm rate has remained lower than ours (and their total homicide rate also has remained lower than ours).

Guns are never *assumed* to be safe. After visually checking that a firearm is safe by everyone present then it is in fact safe. As a habit we still don't point our firearms at anyone.

Comment Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! (Score 1) 331

Red herring. The term is perfectly adequate for this situation. The context is firearm related human death. We are not talking about the death of food animals or pests. As an aside, hunting is a legitimate sport and so is paper and steel target shooting.

I did "think that". I clearly asked you if you were. You on the other hand assumed that I thought you were afraid when I didn't (you asked "why" I thought that).

You're moving to a different point (the efficacy of spoons versus guns in killing people) and not addressing the point at hand. I'm not arguing that firearms are not better at causing acute trauma than spoons. We are talking about why people are afraid of guns and the comparison made with spoons. You pointed out that spoons cause less death. I pointed out that as a proportion of bullets fired down barrels, firearms also cause hardly any death.

A much better comparison is with knives. Knives cause twice as many murder deaths in Australia each year (where I live) versus firearms, yet people are not afraid of knives. Going by the numbers they should be more fearful of knives.

Comment Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! (Score 1) 331

"the number of non-fatal uses of spoons are in the trillions, if not more".

Data please.

I do take your point though.

And along the same lines, also with no data, the number of bullets fired in non-fatal usage of firearms per annum is many orders of magnitude higher than bullets fired that result in injury or death. This is from sporting firearm usage which is the predominant use for firearms the world over.

Are you afraid of guns?

Comment Re:Well... (Score 1) 609

Eugenics still happens.

Hospital staff (i.e. doctors) routinely pressure parents of foetuses with non-lethal (i.e. conducive to life) genetic conditions into aborting those foetuses, thereby removing babies with what they consider undesirable traits from the gene pool.

(note: this is not an anti-abortion post)

Comment Re: Generators (Score 1) 637

I use modified nonsense rhyme composed by myself, combined with numerals, capitalisations, and symbols.

Sometimes they're based on a phrase in English to make it easier to memorise.

Using this method it's fairly easy to remember very long passwords with words mostly not in the dictionary (and that are unique to whomever compose them).

A less secure one: ThellowImWemmo

A more secure one: 7sKrickledefaNg.ate*plipples


Slashdot Top Deals

Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.