Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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 No Thanks (Score 2) 187

The only question I have isn't for Florian, it's who on earth thought it would be a good idea to throw him into the lions den because he's not welcomed here.

The only reason I can think of doing an Ask is so that shills can ask questions to legitimise him in an otherwise very vocal and Florian-hostile community:

"Florian, why is it you spend so much time helping the Open Source world and spreading the Lord's work to the unwashed masses?" +5 Insightful

"I've been a heathen all my life until I read your completely unbiased and thorough articles on Microsoft/Oracle practices. Will you please continue your quest to educate us?" +5 Informative

Comment Re:Have I missed something? (Score 1) 236

Then let's say language like this:

"You may not disclose or in any way indicate you've received this letter (including but not limited to maintaining the existing statuses of any warranty canaries)"

What I'm saying is that if it's legal and binding to compel a company or person not to reveal a security letter, I'm sure the language can be arranged to cover canaries too. I can't see a government body going "Yeah, you got us - there's no way for us to get round this loophole of yours".

Comment Have I missed something? (Score 1) 236

I've possibly not understood how a National Security Letter works but if the government can compel you to not tell anyone about the letter, can't it compel you to not indicate that you've received a letter too?

Some language like "You may not disclose or in any way indicate you've received this letter (including but not limited to altering/amending/removing any warranty canaries)"?

Is the feeling that this would be the line that the government wouldn't cross to protect national security or is the warranty canary simply unreliable?

Comment Re:expect nothing less from the Nasty Party (Score 2) 48

“We are still committed to considering..."

I guess you didn't notice the subtle wording.

What they're saying is they'll definitely think about considering it - they're hoping everyone will assume they mean they're committed to open sourcing it but in fact what they're hiding is they mean exactly the opposite.

Slashdot Top Deals

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.