It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by XPLodER
my country uses ultra deep packet inspection,
so they can easily target any protocal or standard they choose,
the fact that they can "capture" in real time the contents of packet data is widely know here in NZ
xploder
Originally posted by Pervius
Any Computer Scientists KNOWS if you want to keep secure what you are working on...you better be using a self made hardware computer with absolutely no connection to the world what so ever. Or one of the old commercial computers with pre-spyware hardware inside it (pre-1996ish).
Originally posted by ArMaP
Originally posted by XPLodER
the holloywood lobby want to be able to accuse people of infringement, then force ISPs to give my private personal communications to them JUST IN CASE i am steeling their IP (intellectual property).
Does that underlined "want" means that this is something that is not implemented yet? If it's not implemented I suggest you look at all the possible ways of preventing it from happening, at least on your side of things.
Do you have any source for what they want?
A man charged with his "third strike" has no incentive to plead guilty and could subject his alleged victim to a needless trial, a legal expert says.
Under the three strikes legislation, an offender must be sentenced to the maximum sentence without parole regardless of their plea.
The Herald on Sunday revealed last week a 20-year-old from Wellington is believed to be the first to be charged with his third strike.
President of the Criminal Bar Association, Tony Bouchier, said: "There is no discount for early guilty pleas, no discount for remorse, it's just black and white.
"We are simply going to fill our prisons with people who are required to do very long terms of imprisonment."
The Daily Telegraph Australia 2012-07-26: INTERNATIONAL hacking group Anonymous says it has stolen 40GB worth of Australian user data from internet service provider AAPT and is threatening to publish it online. The attack is the second stage of a campaign protesting against proposed changes to privacy laws which would force ISPs to store user data and make it available to intelligence agencies for up to two years
In New Zealand, for example, a presumption of guilt lies on the alleged infringer, and if they can't disprove the charges, they can face fines up to NZ $15,000 or a maximum six month internet disconnection for repeat infringement.
Any Computer Scientists KNOWS if you want to keep secure what you are working on...you better be using a self made hardware computer with absolutely no connection to the world what so ever. Or one of the old commercial computers with pre-spyware hardware inside it (pre-1996ish).
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by XPLodER
I understand it now, and I can only say that I'm glad to live in a country where downloads are legal (at least for now), only the uploading is illegal.
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by XPLodER
Yes, that's extremely worrying, with things working that way they can do whatever they want.
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by aivlas
That would solve (I suppose) the privacy problem, but it doesn't solve the root problem. If they have those laws I don't see what will stop them from:
a) see people that encrypt communications as suspicious/guilty.
b) change the law to force people to decrypt/do not allow people to encrypt communications.
Sanctions for contempt may be criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then the contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed unconditionally. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and theoretically punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process but the due process is unpublished.
In civil contempt cases there is no principle of proportionality. In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), a U.S. court of appeals held that H. Beatty Chadwick could be held indefinitely under federal law, for his failure to produce US$ 2.5 mill. as state court ordered in a civil trial. Chadwick had been imprisoned for nine years at that time and continued to be held in prison until 2009, when a state court set him free after 14 years, making his imprisonment the longest on a contempt charge to date.
Originally posted by Auricom
reply to post by XPLodER
This is why I'm against copyright laws as they stand today. Governments give companies like movie houses and music companies far too much power.
I'm all for protecting intellectual property but at what costs? The cost of my privacy? Nope. The cost of your privacy? Nope. Someone needs to reel in the reigns here and get things under control.
Hollywood isn't that important.
Have we lost 41 percent of our musicians? Depends on how you (the RIAA) count
Disturbed by this revelation, I followed the trail of comments stemming from Resnikoff's missive, which quarreled over the ethics of illegal file sharing and the efficacy of various business models. But what struck me was that none of these debaters double checked the arithmetic construed from the table. After all, if you think about it, this is an astounding claim to make: that the United States has lost something approaching half of its paid musicians since 1999.
So I checked the figures myself, using the basic percentage change formula that I was taught in high school (which, admittedly, was a long time ago): (P2 - P1) / P1 x 100 = percentage change.
If you look at the Digital Music News version of the chart, it looks like the orange bar over 1999 comes to about 49,000 "musicians & artists." Let's call that our P1. The orange bar over 2011 comes to around 34,000 or so. That's our P2.
Next, plug in the numbers: 34,000 minus 49,000 equals negative 15,000, that difference divided by 49,000, then multiplied by 100 equals negative 30.6 percent.
In other words: a 30.6 percent decline. To be fair, a 30 percent drop isn't 41 percent, but it is still a big fall. Given the discrepancy, however, I began wondering about the numbers themselves. So I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' web site myself. The first and most obvious numbers I found were the Occupation Employment Statistics National Cross Industry figures for "musicians and singers" in 2011 (zip / excel): 42,530, and the OES figures for 1999 (zip / excel): 46,440.
And I ran that formula again.
42,530 (P2) - 46,440 (P1) / 46,440 (P1) x 100 = 8.4 percent decline.
8.4 percent, I'm sure most readers will agree, is a long way from 41 percent.
In the United States encryption can backfire upon one. So US citizens need to be aware of this fact. If you fall under investigation for anything computer related and have effective encryption, you can be held in contempt of court for as long as it takes for that encryption to either be broken - or until you give up the keys.
Contempt our court is no minor thing. In fact in the US a contempt charge removes all due process:
Originally posted by XPLodER
exactly,
if i encrypt my comms i become suspect for copyright downloads,
if i dont my resurch is at risk by wrongful claimed infringment.
Originally posted by ArMaP
Originally posted by XPLodER
exactly,
if i encrypt my comms i become suspect for copyright downloads,
if i dont my resurch is at risk by wrongful claimed infringment.
Well, I guess that what you need is an encryption method that makes it look like there's no encryption.