NEWS: FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Broadcom Adds Bluetooth 3.0, Wi-Fi Direct to Android
Next: NEWS: Sprint 4Q Loss Narrows,Pre-Paid Growth Falls Short
From: David Kaye on 10 Feb 2010 18:29 Warren Oates <warren.oates(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >The Americans have a stronger Constitution than yours. I think you misspelled the word "had".
From: Rich Johnson on 10 Feb 2010 19:50 On 2/10/2010 5:25 AM, Gandalf Parker wrote: > John Navas<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> contributed wisdom to > news:8kd4n55b1uigomf5qt6dilfn1cdvfiesff(a)4ax.com: > >> The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites >> customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a requirement that >> law enforcement believes could help it in investigations of child >> pornography and other serious crimes. > > On the one hand, this is a serious breach of our personal security. > > On the other hand, most "carriers" of our personal information keep records > which are often used to solve crimes. At least the tv shows and movies make > it seem that way until the average public doesnt even blink at the idea of > someone viewing a "criminals" personal records. > > It might be that too many will view this as nothing different from a > package service keeping records on what you mail and where it goes. Or a > cable company keeping records on what channels you get. Or at most like the > phone companies records which only a "law entity" can get. > > Gandalf Parker > > Just to clear up the validity of "TV Shows" or movie depictions of what is possible. Remember the movie that had "a hacker" break into a central traffic signal control computer and turned every intersection to all way green? (The Italian job for one.) Can't happen! All traffic signal controllers have an external device called a conflict monitor. It is only programmable by a person clipping diodes on a circuit card at each intersection. That device is called a conflict monitor. If opposing greens receive any simultaneous voltage, it puts the intersection into red flash. (4 way stop) But, of course it would destroy the plot to show reality.
From: Keith Keller on 10 Feb 2010 22:39 ["Followup-To:" header set to ba.internet.] On 2010-02-11, Rich Johnson <richj(a)remove.this.tairedd.com> wrote: > > Just to clear up the validity of "TV Shows" or movie depictions of what > is possible. Remember the movie that had "a hacker" break into a > central traffic signal control computer and turned every intersection to > all way green? (The Italian job for one.) > > Can't happen! All traffic signal controllers have an external device > called a conflict monitor. It is only programmable by a person clipping > diodes on a circuit card at each intersection. That device is called a > conflict monitor. If opposing greens receive any simultaneous voltage, > it puts the intersection into red flash. (4 way stop) > > But, of course it would destroy the plot to show reality. This sort of thing happens everywhere. Remember _Jurassic Park_, where the girl ''hacks'' the server, quoting, "This is the UNIX system, I know this!" and is meanwhile depicted clicking a mouse pointer numerous times? The difference between these two depictions is that _The Italian Job_ was funny, whereas the scene from _Jurassic Park_ was just stupid. --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: David Kaye on 11 Feb 2010 06:21 jeffl(a)cruzio.com wrote: >Don't think it will happen? Well, the automated traffic camera system >has about a 5-10% error rate, but continues to generate revenue for >its municipal customers. I'm all for consspiracy theories, but what evidence do you cite that traffic light cameras have a 5-10% error rate? I've read about this matter extensively and from everything I've read, the error rate is way down in the noise, something like 0.03%, or less than 1/100th of what you cite. The sensors don't come on until the light turns red and the the camera doesn't snap the photo unless the car rolls over the intersection line while the light is red. Fairly simple, actually. Now, as to safeguards for innocent web browsing, I think the people who run the FBI are very aware that any given website is going to have lots of sources of content and that people will accidentally visit sites they don't wish to visit. I don't share a mistrust of government as much as I have a mistrust of private industry. We can control the government because we vote and influence others who vote and give money to campaigns. On the other hand, we have no voice against companies such as Google. We can't vote unless we own their stock, and few of us are rich enough to own enough Google stock to make our voices heard. So, trusing the FBI versus trusting Google to do the right thing, I think I trust the FBI more.
From: DanS on 11 Feb 2010 08:34
sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in news:hl0p7p$but$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > jeffl(a)cruzio.com wrote: > >>Don't think it will happen? Well, the automated traffic camera system >>has about a 5-10% error rate, but continues to generate revenue for >>its municipal customers. > > I'm all for consspiracy theories, but what evidence do you cite that > traffic light cameras have a 5-10% error rate? I've read about this > matter extensively and from everything I've read, the error rate is > way down in the noise, something like 0.03%, or less than 1/100th of > what you cite. The sensors don't come on until the light turns red > and the the camera doesn't snap the photo unless the car rolls over > the intersection line while the light is red. Fairly simple, > actually. Here in Western New York, Buffalo specifically, there was some push to install redlight cameras that has been thwarted for the time being. There were heated discussions about it, the effectiveness, and the legality of it. It is widely believed here that installation of said cameras are nothing more than a way for the city to get more money. They claim it is for safety purposes, but read this..... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/ The municipalites have no monetary outlay. The company that mfgs the equipment designs the system, installs it, and does the monitoring, for no cost. In return, they get to keep 2/3's of the fines paid by a camera issued ticket. http://www.highwayrobbery.net/ |