Small addition: the UrhG mentioned is the Urheberrechtsgesetz. Translated to English you would call it the "Law of rights of the originator". It is not just about "the right to make copies".
Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht (what is called "moral rights" in English) is a subset of Urheberrecht.
UrhG covers copyright and moral rights, some stuff at the intersection, and then some, but on the other hand lacking a few bits covered by US copyright.
1:1 mappings between legal regimes seem to be quite rare.
Hello everybody out there using minix - I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready.
Written by Linus Torvalds on Sunday, 25 August, 1991 in comp.os.minix
You should then search and find all ShitApp made in Rust and post it on HN because the chance that it will be good in 15 years is not zero, probably 1/10^10^10^10 .
Eventually, a full OS or OS kernel written in Rust is going to compete with Linux whether if you like it or not, unless either the maintainers want to have fun fixing the same old C vulnerabilities and bugs for more years or they adopt Rust themselves.
You may not like it, Linus or his maintainers may not like it, but that is where the future is heading.
Downvoters: I know. The future is Rust and change is scary for something like Linux. Good luck finding mountains of use-after-frees or memory corruption vulnerabilities which fixing those in every part of the kernel is a losing battle that Rust has already eliminated in the first place.
You are committing a fallacy fallacy fallacy. If an argument is fallacious, it definitely is wrong. The proposition supported by that argument might still be right however.
If an argument is fallacious, it definitely is wrong.
F^4: Not necessarily. For example, some would argue that an argument is not necessarily "wrong" if it is logically sound and produces a correct conclusion, even though it is fallacious because unbeknownst to the participants there is both a false premise and countervailing unknown factor. See Gettier Problems: http://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/.
There cannot be an unknown factor which renders a valid argument in valid. An argument makes explicit all of the propositions on which it rests. The propositions themselves are irrelevant to validity: a valid argument is true for all possible combinations of truth values of the propositions. It is valid in any imaginable universe, so to speak. That is to say, we can take all of its distinct propositions, replace them with unique variable names, and then evaluate it for all combination of truth values of those variables, and it must come out true.
If an argument is valid, then we can further consider whether it is sound: are its propositions true when interpreted in some relevant world (often the real one, but possibly any imaginary world that the debaters agree about, e.g. the Star Trek universe or whatever). Being valid, the argument will of course be true, but if it is unsound for the given world, it will only somehow be vacuously true in that world. For instance, by exhibiting a false conclusion from a false premise in a conditional.
Applying this reasoning rigidly to the examples presented in http://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/ readily unravels their issues. For instance, the lucky coincidence that Smith has ten coins in his pocket readily succumbs to the fact that this situation isn't true in all imaginable universes; it is a separate proposition from "Jones has ten coins in his pocket". It gets a separate variable, and is separately considered both false and true when we go through all the possible variable values.
I find the german answers [1] surprisingly reasonable.
High Five for the final answer:
> 11. Are there other issues that you would like to raise in relation to encryption and the possible approach to these issues? Please share any relevant national experience or considerations arising from your practice that need to be taken into account.
> Yes. A regulation to prohibit or to weaken encryption for telecommunication and digital services has to be ruled out, in order to protect privacy and business secrets.
I come from Germany. The situation is complicated. The responsible politicians tend to make statements that are contradicting or don't make any sense. There have been multiple statements that at least could be interpreted as supportive of encryption regulation. In one occasion there was a joint statement by the french and german ministers of interior - with the slight problem that the french and german versions of the statement were different.
Recently they created a new institution supposed to help decrypting messages. They never explained what that actually means. (I mean you simply can't decrypt properly designed crypto systems.)
Germany isn't the privacy paradise that some people in the international debates sometimes like to see in it.
On the other hand, it has a larger constituency in government who oppose undermining encryption than most other western nations and a good negative example in the recent past (the Stasi). Just look at the recent legislation passed in the UK, and the statements of Theresa May on encryption or the recent lawsuits by the FBI against Apple. It may be our best hope in stopping legislation mandating backdoors to encryption, which would damage everyone.
The most important difference is the parliamentary sovereignty of the UK. The biggest protector of privacy here in Germany is the constitution, and the Constitutional court rules fairly assertively on issues of privacy and civil rights, so what PM's do or don't do is not that important.
The UK has no such safeguard due to governmental structure.
BSI's job generally is ensuring IT security, not breaking it.
Even the weirder jobs they're tasked with, such as certifying backdoor software for LEAs, it's not about ensuring its operation as a backdoor, but that it only does the designated job (and in particular doesn't bring additional capabilities that are outside their charter)
I sometimes wish BSI had more teeth (e.g. when it comes to stuff like reviewing official backdoor trojans, it's annoying that we need private initiatives and the constitutional court every single time, although that keeps the topic hot), on the other hand it also has a strong whiff of incompetence and bureaucracy that I don't want to see with actual power.
> BSI's job generally is ensuring IT security, not breaking it.
Unfortunately that's also not true. The role of the BSI is very mixed and they have a role as both being offensive and defensive. Which is one of the problems. They're not trustworthy.
The BND/BSI split as implemented in Germany is relatively unique precisely to separate offensive and defensive concerns. The biggest issue IMHO is that they both report to the same federal office.
I worked on SINA components in the past, so I know first hand what they're capable of and what some parts of the German tech media claimed they're used for. (tl;dr: there's very little overlap between some of the more popular claims and reality)
I suspect something similar happened here: BKA and some contractors build the trojan software. BVerfG requires that these tools are limited in their impact, and lawyers would also have a field day in court with any case where the software was used, if it can be shown to create security issues and so the BKA requests a security audit from the BSI (that's part of their charter) and gets it. That might have meant some code (in form of patches) flows back, but given that it's the BSI we're talking about, I doubt it.
Unfortunately the BSI is chartered to do security reviews for federal software, so they can't simply refuse. Meanwhile BSI officials are paranoid because they know (from the SINA/ISP surveillance FUD) what public reception of such a job looks like and tries to do PR management (and fails, which surprises probably no-one).
If I read this article correctly, the headline should actually be: How I made LastPass give me all MY passwords
Update: after a few answers to my badly thought through comment, I now feel enlightened. The attack scenario is a malicious web site which can gobble up my passwords. Thanks
My interpretation is. How I could create a web page that give ME all the commonly used site's passwords for ANY last pass visitor who has autofill enabled.
So no, I don't think it will only give you your own passwords.
If you where using LastPass, and visited any page controlled by an attacker on any domain, they could get your passwords to all sites that they tested for, for example twitter, gmail etc.
