Re: Kids, this REQUIRES trustable "man-in-the-middle"!
Are you really as stupid as you seem or are you just too lazy to actually read what your commenting on?
"Kids, this REQUIRES trustable "man-in-the-middle"!"
How do you figure this? This system has you first get on Tor, hiding your identity, you then upload files that are encrypted to a server(you know, as in the people who own server cant see what it is because umm ITS ENCRYPTED) Then the people at The New Yorker check the box and download the still encrypted data, they then move it to a special computer that is not even online, there they can finally decrypt it.
So, where is this "man in the middle" going to grab the data?
Also... Stenographers? really?
"Definition of STENOGRAPHER
1: a writer of shorthand
2: a person employed chiefly to take and transcribe dictation "
Oh No!!! The government has people who can write SHORTHAND!!!!
"cyber Pearl Harbor" might not be as bad a name for what is coming as people think....
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor as a preemptive strike to try and keep the USA out of WWII. This of course was a gross miscalculation that they later regretted.
We now have the US government looking to make preemptive strikes against the internet as a whole..... Question is, will they realize before it is too late that it is them in the bombers launching the attack?
Yes it is a gunshot wound, but without more details that means nothing. Technically if a bullet grazes you and gives you a little cut, that is a "gunshot wound", but it is hardly worth a hospital visit.
I am assuming this case was a bit more serious but the point is a "gunshot" is about like a knife wound. It can range from a little booboo that needs a kiss to make it better to "oh shit I'm gonna die".
Well, how about the Bluetooth headsets with built in cams that have been available for years now? They look like the ones people wear to talk on the phone and just have added fun of a cam that records to your phone.
"suggesting that President Clinton committed a criminal act. It's a new low for you, which is incredible."
Suggesting President Clinton HASN'T committed a criminal act requires such an amazing level of hiding under a rock that I'm beginning to wonder if you people haven't discovered some form of dimension hopping. Take a look at the USA criminal code, then find me a person who has not broken some law.
I might just be giving them far too much credit, but I can personally see why they would not come out and say they flat out never would sue. That is basically just giving a blanket license to every patent they own to everyone in the world.
I do think they probably should have stepped up though and maybe said something along the lines of flat out they will never attack an open source group. That way they still can prevent someone, like say Apple, from just using tons of googles patients without licenses.
So... unless I am understanding this wrong. The only signature that matters on the transfer of the copyright is the one of the old owner. So, Didn't they basically just say that Allen Cooper just had ownership of a ton of porn just fall in his lap?
How about that for stolen identity. Find that no they didn't clean out your bank, in fact they gave you a lot of stuff.
"So you think the mere offer to take control over a piece of property is the same thing as having already taken control over it?"
Well, I think it is a bold faced lie to say you had no control over something after it has been offered to you. Basically following your logic, government can take something without warrant and then just play a massive shell game saying "Oh, we don't really have it, Fred down in storage does"