Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:Nope. This involves active sharing and consent. (Score 1) 84

This is not stupid at all. It mirrors the obvious principle that everyone here knows, which is that authorization to use a system does not necessarily confer authorization to authorize additional users. This has been a principle in UNIX since before most of us were born, and it continues to be a principle of every multi-user operating system since. There are distinct privilege levels between user and some form of super-user that has the right to authorize additional users.

Moreover, it's a principle of our daily lives that's so obvious we don't even mention it. I let my neighbor Bob use my pool whenever he wants, but I would be shocked if Jill was using it and just said "Oh yeah, Bob said I could".

There is no reason that the principle of non-delegation (that is to say, without explicit authority granted to delegate) shouldn't apply to the virtual world just as much as it applies everywhere else.

Comment Re:Encryption (Score 1) 314

Routine searches of items as they travel across the international border into the US have never been basedon on reasonable suspicion. That was the custom at the time when the Fourth Amendment was ratified and continues in unbroken tradition today.

I specifically say 'routine' to mean things like xray of baggage or vehicles, inspection of cargo,
provision of payment for customs/tariffs, verification of visas/passports and the like. No one has ever suggested that a country should allow people and goods to enter without being checked for compliance. Nor would most of the useful parts of the regulatory state (e.g. the requirement for pharmaceuticals to be safe/pure) be possible if anyone could bring suitcases of the knockoff Chinese medicine through the airport without fear of a search.

Of course, neither extreme position ('the border police can do anything/nothing') is tenable. What I was trying to document is the limits on either end. So you have the sort of short interview on the one hand and the 48 hour hard limit that requires judicial authorization on the other.

Comment Re:Encryption (Score 2) 314

Josh Wolf served 226 days for failure to comply with a subpoena issued by a district court judge pursuant to a court ordered entered into during a grand jury investigation. His case in no way involved a border search. And right or wrong, it has no bearing on this topic.

What we were discussing here was border searches and what sort of searches and seizures agents can carry out without any judicial hearing. Like what sort of searches can be carried out and what sort of limits on the duration of said searches might be before the agent needs to go to a judge.

So either you don't know that the two have nothing at all to do with one another (except in the sense that 'both involves the US legal system', which also relates my speeding tickets to OJ's murder trial) or you did figure that out but are posting off topic nonsense anyway.

Comment Re:Most advertising is geared towards idiots (Score 1) 9

From Kurt Vonnegut's 1962 short story 2 B R 0 2 B:

âoeIn the year 2000,â said Dr. Hitz, âoebefore scientists stepped in and laid down the law, there wasnâ(TM)t even enough drinking water to go around, and nothing to eat but sea-weedâ"and still people insisted on their right to reproduce like jackrabbits. And their right, if possible, to live forever.â

Also, there was a telephone booth in the story!

And slashdot STILL mangles unicode. I'd be ashamed to work there.

Comment Re:Encryption (Score 3, Informative) 314

Incorrect. Prolonged (non-routine) detentions must be based on reasonable suspicion. Even then, the duration of the detention must be limited to the time necessary to confirm or dispel that suspicion. And even if there is reasonable suspicion, under no circumstances can the duration exceed 48 hours without a judicial hearing.

See this handy guide [PDF] for more details and lots of citations. Or here's a quote for the lazy:

There appear to be no âoehard-and-fast time limitsâ that automatically transform what would otherwise be a routine search into a non-routine search, nor render a non-routine search conducted under the reasonable suspicion standard unconstitutional. Rather, courts consider âoewhether the detention of [the traveler] was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified it initially.â In order to provide perspective, the 16-hour detention in Montoya de Hernandez was considered a non-routine search (justifiable by reasonable suspicions), while a one-hour vehicular search did not require reasonable suspicion. The Second Circuit has characterized four- to six-hour-long detentions of individuals suspected of having terrorist ties as routine.

However, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Adekunle concluded that the government must, within a reasonable time (generally within 48 hours), seek a judicial determination that reasonable suspicion exists to detain a suspect for an extended period of time.

Comment Re:over-simplification of economy (Score 1) 504

The entire field of economics is predicated upon the idea of 'endless growth', the implementation of which is trashing the planet. It would be good if we could do something about that first.

Actually, growth leads to the sort of prosperity that is conducive to environmentalism. It is really only after people can afford food, shelter, power, heat and medicine that they chose to stop trashing the planet. Until that point, worrying about the planet is a luxury they cannot afford. If you want to save the planet, your strategic aim should be to ensure that your protections allow sufficient economic growth to make the third world comfortably middle class enough that they actually care about it and are willing to shoulder the additional expense and brake on growth inherent in the environmental tradeoff.

There's a reason India is building 100s of coal fired power plants and mocking the US and Europe when we tell them to switch to more expensive sources even when they already have 30% on hydro/solar.There are still 250 million Indians without power -- why would a democratically accountable government put more priority on reducing emissions than on providing a basic need to them? And given this is a basic need that westerners have for decades taken for granted, what right do we have to lecture them?

I don't mean to say that I don't believe in environmentalism. I do, even though I think it has significant tradeoffs (and is sometimes executed inefficiently, in the sense that I believe we could have more protection at less cost, making everyone happier all at once). But it does have to be placed in the right spot in the list of priorities.

Comment Re:Too Little, Too Late... (Score 1) 43

Odd, where do you live? Plenty of baseball and basketball OTA here in Springfield, IL, a pretty small city. If I want to watch a baseball game that's canle-only, well, that's what bars are for. Lots cheaper than cable.

The phrase "traditional cable or satellite" amuses me, as I was six before Sputnik (long before satellite TV) and thirty before I ever had cable. Growing up in a large metropolis (St. Louis) we only had three channels, now I have twelve in a FAR smaller market.

Comment Re:Your friend... (Score 1) 43

NOBODY should be on cable any more unless they live somewhere where there's just no signal. For everyone else, cable is obsolete.

In the early eighties, cable was a good deal. All your local stations without snow, ghosts, or static, and a dozen good, ad-free extra channels.

Now? TV has gone digital, which banished ghosts, snow, and static. Meanwhile, on cable they even have ads during the actual programming, and the stations like Discovery and History have gone completely to hell. Discovery used to be science, now it's "trick my truck". History used to be about history, now it's "ice road truckers" or some such nonsense.

But 500 channels! Yeah? How many can you watch at once? Why would I have any interest in the four or five channels devoted completely to golf when I hate that game? Or the dozen channels with nothing but women's programs? Why do I need CNN and four more like it when I have Google News for free?

Cable is obsolete.

Charge fifty cents per month for channel I actually watch and you MIGHT get me as a customer... but I don't watch much TV, anyway.

Comment Re:No fallacy. H1B designed for geniuses, Kaku is (Score 1) 247

listen to Kaku's explanation in the video.

This country (and apparently everyone else's) has a terrible aliteracy problem. There's hardly any illiteracy, but the last I read, only something like 3% of Americans read a book last year.

I for one do NOT want to see a talking head. A video that actually uses the video to demonstrate something is fine, but I can read five times as fast as you can talk and get a hell of a lot more out of it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.