Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough strawmen to fill up a dozen fields.
You have a bank account, right? You're an upstanding citizen (OK, I'm making an assumption there), so I'm sure you do. You are aware that if encryption is broken, you don't even have to be on the Internet to have your account information stolen? Banks use VPN encryption to transfer data between offices and other banks. Break encryption, that information is no longer secure. You suddenly find your account balance $0.
Do you telecommute to work? Go to the doctor's office? Use a credit card? All of that stuff and far, far more rely on secure communication. Break that and everything you know falls apart around you.
Constantly hiding under the "Copyright Infringement" banner just shows you have absolutely no idea of the horrors you're calling for.
Despite what anyone thinks about the government and it's trustworthyness, you keep forgetting (probably intentionally)that it's physically impossible to give the good guys a way to monitor encrypted traffic without giving the bad guys the same ability.
If anyone brings up that point, you tend to not ever respond.
Care to actually elaborate on your oh so unclear response?
All telephone communication goes through one of a few central hubs, so tapping the communication securely is relatively simple.
Encrypted communication does not go through any central hubs thus cannot be tapped into in that way. The only possible way is to create a security flaw in the encryption and thus destroy everything because you're afraid.
And don't get the wrong idea. If these assholes get what they want, it will be found by or leaked to the wrong people and you, along with everyone else, will be harmed by it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Replies to killing access on accusations & copyright math
1) Filing? No. Fighting the actual case? Yes.
2) You do realize that most people still only have access to one, maybe two ISPs. It can take up to three fucking weeks (perhaps even longer) to switch (assuming the second ISP even provides service where they say they do). And that's assuming the second ISP will be willing to take on the liability. If this ruling goes without a fight, that's exactly what's going to happen. You get kicked off of one ISP and no others are going to be willing to risk $25,000,000 just to get one more customer.
"The fact that the information turned out later to be untrue"
It didn't turn out to be untrue, it turned out to be non-existent. It would be like me claiming you stole my car, the police taking your car (keeping it for 5 years), and then it turns out that they never even bothered to ask for the paperwork showing I owned the car.
Actually there is harm in checking. It puts credibility behind the false claims that WiFi is dangerous.
There is 0 evidence that anyone is actually affected by WiFi. Treating it as a brand new, dangerous thing after 20 years of use (not including the decades of other types of signals) is just fear mongering.
But, hay, your an "electronic engineer versed in electronic medical devices." Do you have any idea how much money you could get, and how much good you could do if you prove your claims? I mean, everyone here thinks the claims are full of it and have no problems being around WiFi. Imagen what would change if you put your money where your mouth is and proved it.
You don't see a problem with this?
This whole "get everything for free" mentality is what caused this problem in the first place. Websites wanted more money, so they put in more ads. Advertisers wanted more money, so they made more annoying ads. Hackers wanted free money, so they made malicious ads.
People didn't have a problem with ads at the beginning. We've been trained by TV and radio... And in magazines and movies and at ball games, on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and bananas and written on the sky (but not in dreams) that advertisements are a thing that we should accept. It's not until they got bad that people started fighting back.
This entitlement mentality (that's the word you're looking for) goes both ways.
There are two uses for "Left Nut" that I have heard. The first being the one referenced here "I would give up my left nut for..." and the second has the words "Left Nut" preceded by "Suck my". Both are in reference to one vary particular part of the male anatomy.
Is it offensive? It's definitely vulgar, so yes, to a lot of people it is offensive. Especially the "Suck my" usage.
But you're going to focus on the first usage, the one that's less vulgar and slightly less offensive to some. Well, it's been said that the name "Redskins" is not in reference to the ethnic slur, but to the bravery and strength of the Native Americans. So if we're still fighting against "Redskins" because of it's one offensive meaning, then we have to fight this one because of it's one offensive meaning.
Now, to be perfectly clear, I don't think the US government should have any say on what is offensive and what isn't. For the same reason we have the First Amendment.
Once again, creating a real world analogy to explain something a computer does is really hard, but here I go.
You have a lock on your door to your home, right? You go around and make sure everything is locked up at night before you go to bed.
Now how would you feel if you found out that every single door in your city has a master key that the police have. That key isn't just loaned out when needed, it's copied and the copies aren't expected back. If the keys are only given to law enforcement, it should be fine, right?
So after a bit of time there have been quite a few requests for this master key. Some guy over here is suspected of dealing drugs. That person over there is accused of kidnapping. That person across town has kiddy porn. A warrant is obtained in each instance and a copy of the key is made.
How often do people lose their keys? How much more likely is it to lose your keys as you add more keys? How easy would it be to steal this master key as more and more of them come into existence? How long until the key falls into the hands of a cop that isn't 100% loyal?
How much more likely would it be that some guy just screwing around in his basement manages to make this master key from scratch without any outside help?
Keeping every single lock in a city different means that if someone wants to break in, they have to start completely from scratch on each and every lock. Making one key means that only one lock has to be broken and suddenly they all are.
Granted, this is Hillary Clinton. Since she's married to a former president, she has secret service guarding her house. She doesn't have to think about locking her doors. She'd probably look at my analogy and just say "You should really get your personal guard on that."
I've been programming for a while now. I'm not good at it, but I have learned one important thing: sometimes you have to chuck the code and start again completely from scratch. This forces you to rethink the path taken that just did not work no matter how much fiddling you did.
The NSA Surveillance obviously does not work and they've had plenty of fiddling time. Senator Cotton is removing the one thing that might force them to rethink their strategy and come up with something that does work. But no. If they extend the surveillance then the NSA is stuck with it no matter what. Got to justify the money being spent on it.
2) You do realize that the people who did 9/11 came into America legally, right? Blaming the refugees for Paris would be like blaming the hammer if it was used as a weapon. The refugee crisis was just a tool, an excuse that the terrorists used. If there weren't refugees, those terrorists would have just had fake passports. Or, hell, real ones. It's not like they were worried about getting back home.