Podcast for 30 May 2016

[MrBogosity]

[mp3]http://media.blubrry.com/bogosity/p/podcast.bogosity.tv/mp3s/BogosityPodcast-2016-05-30.mp3[/mp3]


Co-Host: Travis Retriever

News of the Bogus:

• 0:50 - The Oracle-Google Case Will Decide the Future of Software http://www.wired.com/2016/05/oracle-google-case-will-decide-future-software/
  
  
  
  • Ep. 3: Early Copyright History - Copy-me http://copy-me.org/2014/10/copy-me-webseries-early-copyright-history-episode-3/
  • Google beats Oracle—Android makes "fair use" of Java APIs http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/google-wins-trial-against-oracle-as-jury-finds-android-is-fair-use/
• 14:41 - Elders way better at password security than millennials https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/05/25/elders-way-better-at-password-security-than-millennials/
• 23:36 - Should You Be Allowed to Prevent Drones From Flying Over Your Property? http://www.wsj.com/articles/should-you-be-allowed-to-prevent-drones-from-flying-over-your-property-1463968981

37:53 - Biggest Bogon Emitter: The W3C https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-firefox

46:02 - Idiot Extraordinaire: The FBI (double-hit!)

• FBI Agent Testifies That The Agency's Tor-Exploiting Malware Isn't Actually Malware https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160522/16420734519/fbi-agent-testifies-that-agencys-tor-exploiting-malware-isnt-actually-malware.shtml
• Congrats, FBI, You've Now Convinced Silicon Valley To Encrypt And Dump Log Files https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160525/00574034542/congrats-fbi-youve-now-convinced-silicon-valley-to-encrypt-dump-log-files.shtml

This Week's Quote: "It's impossible to overstate how bonkers the idea of sabotaging cryptography is to people who understand information security...Use deliberately compromised cryptography, that has a back door that only the 'good guys' are supposed to have the keys to, and you have effectively no security. You might as well skywrite it as encrypt it with pre-broken, sabotaged encryption." —Cory Doctorow

[evensgrey]

This looks like a good place to mention the differentiation between fallacious and non-fallacious slippery slope arguments.  It's quite simple:  A slippery slope argument is fallacious to the extent that there is not, in reality, a slippery slope.  The existence of slippery slopes is not always obvious, but it is always the case that lawyers will use any tiny opening to try and get something in.

Look at how business method patents morphed into software patents, and how cryptographic patents somehow got allowed, despite cryptography being pure mathematics and mathematics being explicitly non-patentable.

[MrBogosity]

So, then, it's not really a fallacy, just an argument that can be either correct or incorrect, depending on the situation.