Re: weird logic
At 06:15 PM 06/17/2003 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2998870.stm With Iraq's judicial system in disarray after the end of the war, Paul Bremer said a special criminal court would be set up. He said the court would try people, in particular senior Baathists... may have committed crimes against the coalition, who are trying to destabilise the situation. So you invade a country, and the patriots who resist you are no longer soldiers, even guerillas, but criminals to be tried in the US's weird new courts, probably secretly with no representation. Yup. And USA Today was referring to the US military reserve soldiers who were sent there as Citizen Soldiers, but of course *Iraqis* who fought the invaders weren't citizen soldiers, they were terrorists or illegal combatants or evil or failing to act sufficiently French by surrendering. And since the US Constitution doesn't apply to US forces operating outside the US, there's no prohibition against ex post facto laws about crimes against the coalition, and of course the Bush Administration bullied Brussels into exempting their armed forces from war crimes laws.
Re: [Brinworld] Car's data recorder convicts driver
On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 05:17 AM, Adam Shostack wrote: I wasn't arguing, I was quipping. I find the many meanings of the word privacy to be fascinating. So when someone commented that the car's tattle-box is or isn't a privacy invasion, I thought I'd offer up a definition under which it is. Its a definition that lots of people use, as John points out. Perhaps better than 'right' would be 'ability,' 'The ability to lie and get away with it.' I wasn't picking on you or your points, that's for sure. In fact, I barely noticed whose message I was replying to. My point was a larger one, that nearly all such debates about privacy eventually come round to issues of what have you got to hide? and issues of truth and lies. This is why I like the Congresss shall make no law and shall not be infringed absoluteness of the original Constitution. The language does not natter about truthful speaking shall not be infringed. And this is why more recent legislation allowing government to regulate commercial speech or to decide which speech is true and which is false (as in advertising claims) is so corrosive to liberty. --Tim May The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun. --Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
Re: bbc
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:01:01PM +0100, Jim Dixon wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: Did the IRA bomb the BBC newserver or something? They've been down for two days now. There has certainly been no interruption in service in the UK; I look at it daily. However, news.bbc.co.uk is not one machine. The BBC has at least two clusters of servers, one at Telehouse in London and the other in Telehouse America in New York. When I was providing services to the BBC (up until about 18 months ago), these server farms were connected by a private circuit, enabling the NY site to mirror the UK site. Custom DNS software looked at where you were (by IP address) and then gave you an IP address in either London or New York, depending on whether you connected through the London Internet exchange. What's most likely is that someone along the way has tried to be clever with caching/proxying and in effect has broken your connection. Must be something like that -- weird tho. I can get to news.bbc.co.uk just fine, but the one I'd been using for a long, long time on a daily basis, www.bbc.uk.com, just disappeared. Oh well. Makes me wonder tho, about who/what the sites actually are that we go to -- maybe nothing is as it seems. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: [Brinworld] Car's data recorder convicts driver
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Steve Schear wrote: Indeed 'privacy' and 'secrecy' are often confused and their meanings overlap in many a mind. I think that most, at least in the West, accept that privacy ..is based on rules and trust, for example, records kept on us by our doctors. Because exposure of various aspects of our private lives can do lasting damage, privacy is only effective when controlled by the party seeking it, who may disclose it or not as they see fit and can only be guaranteed when those who would sell you out don't possess the possibly damaging information. For that reason among others, I am really only interested in privacy mediated by personal secrecy and technologies I trust and/or control. I agree with you. Being anonymous is very important here. Privacy is something alluded to by the famous Gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's mail. Secrecy is what other people cannot find out. Anonymity (strong or not) is vastly important to secrecy. Medical data is a great example of this. It may be private, for some (weak) values of private, right now. Being John Doe at the doctor's office and paying cash, though, is vastly better in terms of assurance, at least until the doctor's business-cam interfaces with other databases. Too bad that works so poorly with insurance, but then worker insurance in the US is nearly a government program, anyway. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without bricks tied to its head.
Re: [Brinworld] Car's data recorder convicts driver
At 11:45 2003-06-18 -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote: Anonymity (strong or not) is vastly important to secrecy. Medical data is a great example of this. It may be private, for some (weak) values of private, right now. Being John Doe at the doctor's office and paying cash, though, is vastly better in terms of assurance, at least until the doctor's business-cam interfaces with other databases. Too bad that works so poorly with insurance, but then worker insurance in the US is nearly a government program, anyway. There may be a viable opportunity for an off-shore private medical insurance carrier which does not use your social security number as your identifier to the medical service provider. Due to excessive U.S. fed and state insurance regulations many/most doctors might refuse to accept it (at least initially) it may be necessary for this insurance to operate off network so that subscribers would have to pay the care giver and be reimbursed. steve
Re: [Brinworld] Car's data recorder convicts driver
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:11:58AM -0700, Tim May wrote: | On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 05:17 AM, Adam Shostack wrote: | | I wasn't arguing, I was quipping. | | I find the many meanings of the word privacy to be fascinating. So | when someone commented that the car's tattle-box is or isn't a privacy | invasion, I thought I'd offer up a definition under which it is. | Its a definition that lots of people use, as John points out. | | Perhaps better than 'right' would be 'ability,' 'The ability to lie | and get away with it.' | | I wasn't picking on you or your points, that's for sure. In fact, I | barely noticed whose message I was replying to. Gives new meaning to anonymous postings. ;) | My point was a larger one, that nearly all such debates about privacy | eventually come round to issues of what have you got to hide? and | issues of truth and lies. | | This is why I like the Congresss shall make no law and shall not be | infringed absoluteness of the original Constitution. The language does | not natter about truthful speaking shall not be infringed. | | And this is why more recent legislation allowing government to regulate | commercial speech or to decide which speech is true and which is | false (as in advertising claims) is so corrosive to liberty. Indeed. The European data protection laws are fundamentally unamerican. Unfortunately, Congress has made laws, numbering each of us, and then tries to regulate the abuse of that (free, freely usable, legally enforced) numbering scheme. Adam -- It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume
Re: [Brinworld] Car's data recorder convicts driver
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Tim May wrote: Unlikely. Getting juice into the innards of a box in a way so as to overwrite data is not nearly so simply as applying sparky things to the outside of the box. Lots of reasons for this. The idea wasn't about overwriting the data. The idea was about frying the chip with the data inside (and if all the other chips inside the box become a collateral damage, let's that be so). As long as it is outside the technological abilities of the given adversary to retrieve the data from the fried chip, the objective is reached. The idea also wasn't about the outside of the box, I thought rather disconnecting the power leads and blasting the spark into the power-GND pair, or into the (disconnected, we don't want to kill the entire car electronics) data bus. With a bit of luck, the spark could get through the filters and into the Vcc pins of the chips.
Re: [Brinworld] Car's data recorder convicts driver
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, jburnes wrote: Why go to all that trouble. Just take it out of circuit. Cut the printed circuit board leads and disable it or if its in an inaccessible black box, cut the leads to the box. Easy enough. Works very nicely. :) Problem: leaves evidence, and takes time. The main advantage of electric shock is that the fried chip looks for the naked eye exactly the same way as a non-fried chip. The only difference could be found with a scanning electron microscope on the chip itself, which is something nobody is likely to bother with. Especially in harsh environments (cars classify) chips tend to die, so its death could look as natural enough to not be suspicious. If I am wrong, please tell me where and why. :)
