I agree that Dropbox's client should handle encryption/decryption on the client side. The fact that they don't offer that option and the disclosure that they were next on the NSA's todo list sent me looking for a more secure alternative. I'm now using Wuala for file sync. All encryt/decrypt actions happen in the client other than the SSL return trip. The client runs on the Java JRE, and presents itself to the host system as a virtual drive, when logged into the client. If not logged into the client, the virtual drive is not available. Passwords are encrypted on the server side, so if you forget your password, you're S.O.L. on regaining access using that account. They can't help you. First 5 GB file storage is free; charges for more storage are less than Dropbox's. Furthermore, it's a Swiss company with its servers located in Switzerland. That nation is far enough along in the process of becoming an EU member nation that the E.U. data privacy rights apply (far more protective than in the U.S.), but the exceptions to the EU privacy rights do not yet apply, although that's a window that will close at some point. File load/save times on the virtual drive are a bit slow (I've Java JRE, after all), but not ridiculously so. File syncs are faster than Dropbox's, at least on my systems. I don't know why. I like it a lot. I'd rather not run my own VPN and leave a server running at all times when I'm away from home. All I'm after is portable file sync. I don't need to search the files on their servers nor do I need a web interface. If I'm using someone else's system (rare event for me), it's easy enough to download and install the client temporarily unless the system blocks installation of a Java app. Wuala does have a few extra bells and whistles, but I haven't used them so far. Generally speaking, I'm boycotting web services that are susceptible to orders issued by a U.S. judge because they are being insufficiently aggressive about clipping the government's digital snooping powers. The more they are boycotted because of it, the more incentive they have to spend more on lobbying and litigation.

Unless one posits a governmental alternative to private banks, the U.S. Constitution raises some barriers to a "cashless society." In the Supreme Court's recent Obamacare ruling (PDF), the court held that neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause provide Congress with power to require that a person participate in commerce, i.e., by requiring that they buy health insurance. The relevant legislation was upheld under the Congressional power to levy taxes, in the form of a penalty for those who do not buy health insurance.

Requiring that people enter into a business arrangement with a private bank to handle their funds would seem to run into the same barrier, leaving the question whether Congress has power to require people to pay all debts via a private bank under its power to coin money and set the value thereof, in legal effect requiring people to loan money to private banks in the form of deposits.

The factual basis for such a test case already exists because of a statute requiring that all payments of Social Security and Dept. of Veteran Affairs benefits (and wages of federal employees) be made by electronic funds transfer, which as currently implemented can only be made to private banks other than the Federal Reserve Banks.

By way of disclosing my bias, I have boycotted banks since the collapse of the economy in 2008 because of massive bankster fraud that caused that collapse. I have refused to accept payment of VA and Social Security benefits by that method. I do not intend to loan my money to banks and am willing to litigate that issue if necessary.

Paul E. "Marbux" Merrell, J.D.

If you're contending that parenthetical statement is true of any U.S. jurisdiction, I'd appreciate an example citation. For the U.S., it is extremely difficult for me to accept that such an enactment would not have made headlines in virtually all major legal news reporters. And I watch those closely. I'm a retired lawyer.

It would seem a highly newsworthy situation in the U.S. if a consensual sexual act lawful when committed could be made retroactive by later withdrawal of consent by one of the previously-consenting sexual partners. U.S. Const. Art II, 9, cl. 3: "No ... ex post facto Law shall be passed." Made applicable to the states by Art. 1, 10 ("No State shall ... pass any ... ex post facto Law"). Echoed in every state constitution I've read (which is way over half of them). The clause is generally given full effect when the law is criminal and its aim is punitive. The closest I can come to what you argue in a U.S. Court is Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), where the Court upheld a retroactive sex offender registration law on the theory that it was regulatory and non-punitive, i.e., not punishment for the original crime.

There was a case somewhat along the lines you describe in Israel fairly recently, although as I recall it was a civil case for damages brought by a Jewish female citizen who stipulated that she had given consent but that her former Palestinian-Israeli lover had defrauded her by not affirmatively disclosing to her before they had sex that he had Palestinian blood. I have not seen a decision in that case yet. Tough one for the Israeli courts because both parties are reportedly Israeli citizens, so the more common apartheid laws there are likely off the table in light of Israel's preposterous claims on the world stage about protecting the civil rights and equality of its Palestinian citizens. I haven't looked at the details of the case, but it smelled like the raw ingredients for an international civil rights black eye for Israel might be there if the court rules for the plaintiff.

But that set of facts, assuming the reports I have read are accurate, would likely never make it into court in the U.S. The anti-miscegenation laws were made unenforceable pursuant to the Due Process clause and the 14th Amendment's Equal Rights clause by a unanimous Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), a precedent becoming more important again recently in the same-sex marriage litigation.

Mind you, I am not saying that there is no such law as you describe in the U.S., but I do ask for a citation if you know of such a precedent.

Paul E. "Marbux" Merrell, J.D.

You may not be a rapist or a violent person, but women don't know that. Th best way to put it is let's say 1% of men are violent towards women (which is probably low). You claim women shouldn't assume you are because it is only 1%. I have a big bowl of M&Ms and only 1% of them are poisoned. I happily invite you to try some, since only 1% of them are poisoned. Are you going to eat any? No you are going to worry your ass off and not touch any of them. And that is what women live with every day.

That metaphor doesn't mesh with my experience of womankind. Reductio ad absurdum,you should patent your idea and market licenses to online dating services for your patented pick-my-next-guy "I'm feeling lucky" button. Perhaps yours is a better marketing theme than "find your perfect compatibility match?"

Do you expect anyone to believe that all women are so stupid as to practice random male-selection whilst concurrently retaining a sufficient sliver of gray matter for sophisticated analysis of raw statistical data acquired from others? That is the foundation of your metaphor's applicability to reality and it is a bold accusation against the feminine side of humanity.

Your metaphor holds true only for a hypothetical group of women who choose their men using a truly random method. Despite nearly 68 years on this planet, I've never noticed such a woman; those I have observed in the wild seem to quite consistently heed clues provided by their senses and exercise some degree of judgment in their selection of men. Some I have observed closely seem to go much farther, even past the point of investigation and consultation with other women (and even with men) to the point of cautious sampling in a safe environment. In other words, I see no evidence for random male selection by women. More often, it seems to be committee work.

In your last leap of illogic, you descend to your conclusion that "[n]o you are going to worry your ass off and not touch any of them. And that is what women live with every day." I.e., your conclusion is that women will abstain from contact with men. If I compare what is known about the natural human reproductive method with the present birth rate, that would seem to be fairly strong evidence that all women do not in fact abstain from contact with men; i.e., that your M&M metaphor's conclusion has no reality-grounded applicability to the rape issue at all.

I see other issues with your M&M metaphor as well, but this explanation should suffice to dissuade you from its repetition in similar contexts. It is not an apt metaphor.

Paul E. "Marbux" Merrell

@ "Additionally the company noted that they had complied with all applicable environmental regulations."

Regulatory agencies do not grant regulated companies a right to injure others' properties, liberties, or lives. If they did, it would be an unconstitutional taking of property, liberty, or life without due process and just compensation under the 5th and 14th Amendments. For that reason and because environmental regulations may be inadequate to protect third parties, compliance with applicable environmental regulations is not an affirmative defense to a toxic tort claim. Such compliance may be admissible as evidence, but it creates no legal right to pollute if it results in harm to others. One need look no further than the pollution permits issued by regulatory agencies to read that the permit does not grant permission to harm others.

Paul E. Merrell, J.D.

"If privacy concerns could be addressed and automakers would be willing to share that data with government transportation planners, the rollout of public charging stations could be more targeted and cash-efficient."

How would one adequately address privacy concerns when the spy agencies routinely lie about what they do?

That $12 billion projected loss for the government is a double-edged sword. Presumably, it represents but a fraction of what the two companies would charge users for use of the spectrum in a pure duopoly market. Preserving competition may mean less revenue for government in this situation, but helps hold the duopolists' prices down. So the public benefit is there.

Whether there is a legal duty to repair bugs depends on particular facts and controlling law in the particular jurisdiction. Getting a lawyer involved before entering into agreements to deliver a work for hire is important. Ideally, a lawyer would help you develop an agreement form that can be recycled in other sales contracts.

But speaking generally, where a work for hire has serious defects that render the product unsuitable for the intended purpose, the person who sold the work is obligated to repair the defects under laws governing liability for defective products (tort law) and under the implied warranty of suitability for the intended purpose that cannot be disclaimed in at least most U.S. jurisdictions (contract law). Courts tend to favor the purchaser of defective products, particularly in the case of an unsophisticated purchaser and latent defects that do not manifest before payment for the product. E.g., you pay a contractor to build your house and five years later the foundations crumble to dust or a fire started by defective wiring destroys the house. The law generally provides a remedy in such situations.

The customer's position in the particular situation under discussion is likely based on such precepts. There are also affirmative defenses to such claims, but I would recommend in this situation that you consult a lawyer with expertise in this area. You might also consider repairing the bugs in the meantime with the written understanding that who pays for the work will be sorted out later. If you do not, the customer may hire someone else to make the repairs, then come after you for the cost, which because of the subsequent contract's lack of experience with your code will necessarily be far higher than your own expense to repair.

Paul E. "Marbux" Merrell, J.D.
-- retired lawyer

" Very low levels - No health effects, essentially no increased risk of cancer (maybe something like .01 percent increased risk, but so close to zero as to be effectively zero increase in risk of cancer)."

Sorry, but you've been suckered by a purveyor of disinformation. They claim that low dose "risks" of radiation and other toxins can be scientifically determined. But the state of the art of cancer risk assessment has not changed in relevant regard since the seminal pronouncement in 1979:

"The self-replicating nature of cancer, the multiplicity of causative factors to which individuals can be exposed, the additive and possibly synergistic combination of effects, and the wide range of individual susceptibilities work together in making it currently unreliable to predict a threshold below which human population exposure to a carcinogen has no effect on cancer risk."

Inter-Agency Regulatory Liaison Group Work Group Report on the Scientific Bases for Identification of Potential Carcinogens and Estimation of Risks." Federal Register 44:39869, 39876 (July 6, 1979).

The simple truth is that science is currently unable to tell us the effects of low dose radiation. Risk assessment for carcinogens is a much abused substitute for scientific knowledge that can provide no assurance that its low-dose "risk" (actually projected body count) is accurate. When such "risks" are passed off as established scientific fact, a seriously misleading falsehood is being told.

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretense of defending, have enslaved the people.

— James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, June 29, 1787

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear --- kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor --- with the cry of grave national emergency. Always, there has been some terrible evil at home, or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.

— General Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964); source: Whan, ed. "A Soldier Speaks: Public Papers and Speeches of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur," (1965); Nation, August 17, 1957.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

— H. L. Mencken

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

— Abraham Lincoln

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

— Edward R. Murrow

The voice of protest, of warning, of appeal is never more needed than when the clamor of fife and drum, echoed by the press and too often by the pulpit, is bidding all men fall in and keep step and obey in silence the tyrannous word of command. Then, more than ever, it is the duty of the good citizen not to be silent."

— Charles Eliot Norton

Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.

— Helen Keller

PSYOP [Psychological Operations] are essential to the success of PRC [Population & Resources Control]. For maximum effectiveness, a strong psychological operations effort is directed toward the families of the insurgents and their popular support base. The PSYOP aspect of the PRC program tries to make the imposition of control more palatable to the people by relating the necessity of controls to their safety and well-being. PSYOP efforts also try to create a favorable national or local government image and counter the effects of the insurgent propaganda effort.

— US Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces, FM 31.20-3 (2003), WikiLeaks

The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.

— Dr. Joseph Mengele

It's real, folks. PsyOps is a mature applied behavioral science.

Or, as Pogo might have said, "We have met the enemy and he is U.S.."

Once upon a time, the CIA trained, financed and supported Osama bin Laden and his mujahidin networks in Afghanistan to repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. After the end of the Cold War, bin Laden turned against the West and we no longer had any use for him. His persistent terrorist attacks against us for more than a decade, culminating in 9/11, provoked our own response, in the form of the ‘War on Terror’. This is the official narrative. And it’s false. Not only did Western intelligence services continue to foster Islamist extremist and terrorist groups connected to al-Qaeda after the Cold War; they continued to do so even after 9/11.

Our Terrorists, New Internationalist, No. 426 (1 October 2009). That's recommended reading.

Paul E. "Marbux" Merrell, J.D.

Former field team leader, Team 8B-5, Co. A, 8th PsyOps Bn, 4th Grp, U.S. Army Republic of Viet Nam (USARV).

One big problem with granting patents to the first to file a patent application rather than to the inventor is obvious tension with a constitutional limit on the powers of Congress in regards to patents. U.S. Constitution Article I 8 provides in relevant part:

The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries[.]

The Constitution does not say that Congress shall have power to provide for patents to the first to file; instead, the plain language limits the grant to the inventor. And the Patent Clause "is both a grant of power and a limitation . ... The Congress in the exercise of the patent power may not overreach the restraints imposed by the stated constitutional purpose. " Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 5 (1966) . What's done outside the U.S. is not particularly persuasive if it clashes with the Constitution.Look for a constitutional challenge if Congress adopts first-to-file. Paul E. Merrell, J.D.

...at the Universal Interoperability Council.

The Universally Accessible and Interoperable Specification is being developed as an alternative to existing definitions of an "open standard" primarily because existing definitions: [i] clash with international law governing government procurement and standards development such as the Agrement on Government Procurement and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade; [ii] do not adequately address the quality of standards; and [iii] have almost uniformly been bent to accommodate existing standards.

The approach taken in the UAIS is to lay down a set of evaluative criteria that describe the ideal against which standards can be compared. Few existing standards will fully satisfy the criteria. Careful attention has been given both to governing international law and many years of hard lessons learned in the standards development trenches.

The UAIS is a work in progress, but is to a state where I believe it may usefully be employed by procuring entities. However, I caution that the portions dealing with accessibility still need major revision to bring them in line with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which entered into force on May 3, 2008.

You may also find of some use The Interop Glossary available at the same web site. The Glossary is "an evolving vocabulary for the law of interoperability governing electronic data format and communication protocol technical specifications, standards, and technical regulations."

You will find links to many other definitions of an open standard at Wikipedia and a more comprehensive treatment of the subject at Cover Pages.

-- Paul E. ("Marbux") Merrell, J.D.
marbux pine at maple gmail.com
(subtract the trees)

Have to disagree with this. Sourceforge is now included in the US Patent & Trademark Office's searches for prior art. "Empty" projects that expose methods and concepts on Sourceforge can at least block yet another software patent.

I'd love to see Sourceforge and other developers' sites promote "idea mills" or some such for vaporware methods and concepts, complete with the ability for site visitors to rate the vaporware, commenting ability to point to where it's already been done, to add feature requests, etc. Throw in an ability to contribute funding to developers willing to work on the project, and the better ideas might actually get built.

Many users don't understand how to program. Many developers don't understand user requirements. User-generated vaporware projects just might provide one means for the two communities to educate each other and make serindippity happen.