Talk:1820: Security Advice - Revision history

JLZ0kTC5 at 01:49, 24 July 2023

2023-07-24T01:49:46Z

Cosmogoblin at 23:39, 15 August 2018

2018-08-15T23:39:47Z

PotatoGod: The title text tip is right!

2018-08-10T15:44:56Z

The title text tip is right!

Cosmogoblin at 16:16, 22 July 2018

2018-07-22T16:16:26Z

Cosmogoblin at 16:15, 22 July 2018

2018-07-22T16:15:46Z

Cosmogoblin at 16:07, 22 July 2018

2018-07-22T16:07:06Z

NiceGuy1 at 05:24, 13 June 2017

2017-06-13T05:24:32Z

NiceGuy1 at 05:07, 13 June 2017

2017-06-13T05:07:16Z

Ianrbibtitlht: Alternate explanation for burner's phone

2017-06-08T14:11:41Z

Alternate explanation for burner's phone

172.68.133.120: /* Fourth amendment does not apply to border or customs searches */ new section

2017-04-19T14:21:57Z

‎Fourth amendment does not apply to border or customs searches: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:49, 24 July 2023
Line 86:		Line 86:

	The tip in the title text isn’t technically wrong, just misleading, as you shouldn’t give you passwords or bank info to people without blue checkmarks. You also shouldn’t give them to people with blue checkmarks either, of course, but that doesn’t make the tip wrong. [[User:PotatoGod\|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod\|talk]]) 15:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)		The tip in the title text isn’t technically wrong, just misleading, as you shouldn’t give you passwords or bank info to people without blue checkmarks. You also shouldn’t give them to people with blue checkmarks either, of course, but that doesn’t make the tip wrong. [[User:PotatoGod\|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod\|talk]]) 15:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	did something happen to this page? i can't remove them either. [[User:JLZ0kTC5\|JLZ0kTC5]] ([[User talk:JLZ0kTC5\|talk]]) 01:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:39, 15 August 2018
Line 22:		Line 22:

	"If a border guard asks to examine your laptop, you have a legal right to challenge them to a chess game for your soul.", do any of you know exactly what is the original advice here? This is probably different in different countries, but if I recall correctly you can't prevent them from seizing your device, but you are not required to provide them your passwords (but they may give you a hard time or deny your entry if you are not a citizen). Anyone can confirm this? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.22\|108.162.216.22]] 15:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)		"If a border guard asks to examine your laptop, you have a legal right to challenge them to a chess game for your soul.", do any of you know exactly what is the original advice here? This is probably different in different countries, but if I recall correctly you can't prevent them from seizing your device, but you are not required to provide them your passwords (but they may give you a hard time or deny your entry if you are not a citizen). Anyone can confirm this? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.22\|108.162.216.22]] 15:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
		+	:In the UK, police can demand your password if they suspect a crime, and border staff can demand your password even without permission. People can be - and [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06/jail_password_ripa/ have been] - imprisoned for not providing a password. [[User:Cosmogoblin\|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin\|talk]]) 23:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 10 August 2018
Line 82:		Line 82:
	While it's possible that "burner" could refer to someone who attends the Burning Man festival, I believe it's more likely this is referring to someone who smokes marijuana, which is a common term in popular informal English. This also makes a nice connection with the part about typical usage of burner phones by drug dealers. --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 14:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)		While it's possible that "burner" could refer to someone who attends the Burning Man festival, I believe it's more likely this is referring to someone who smokes marijuana, which is a common term in popular informal English. This also makes a nice connection with the part about typical usage of burner phones by drug dealers. --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 14:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
	:Agreed. I feel like there's no question, Randall is referring to a pot smoker, i doubt there was ever any intent by him to reference Burning Man here. [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 05:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)		:Agreed. I feel like there's no question, Randall is referring to a pot smoker, i doubt there was ever any intent by him to reference Burning Man here. [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 05:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	The tip in the title text isn’t technically wrong, just misleading, as you shouldn’t give you passwords or bank info to people without blue checkmarks. You also shouldn’t give them to people with blue checkmarks either, of course, but that doesn’t make the tip wrong. [[User:PotatoGod\|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod\|talk]]) 15:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 Because it is trivial to have a link display "schmoo.com" but actually send you to "dastardlyevil.com" when clicked, this is actually usable advice. If the link displays an website address, one that is correct, highlight and copy the text and paste it directly into a browser's address bar. Barring that, right click on the link, copy the hidden link address, and paste that into the address bar. Of course then you should check carefully that the copied address isn't bougus. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 00:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 :Usually, any software I use will show the real address in the status bar when I hover the mouse over the link. I always check if these match, and if so, I know I can feel free to click (assuming said agreeing address is one I wish to visit, of course, LOL!) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
-::I go further - if I'm at all suspicious of a link I'll type it directly.  Copy-paste will retain homoglyphs, characters which look similar but aren't; for example explainxkcd.com is correct, but ｅхplainхkcd.com is not (using the Cyrillic HA in place of the Latin x), and could be registered as an entirely different website.
+::I go further - if I'm at all suspicious of a link I'll type it directly.  Copy-paste will retain homoglyphs, characters which look similar but aren't; for example explainxkcd.com is correct, but eхplainхkcd.com is not (using the Cyrillic HA in place of the Latin x), and could be registered as an entirely different website. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 16:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 "If the smoke detector worked according to the authentication logic it will be less likely to detect smoke, effectively lessening fire safety as compared to a single sensor one"

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 Because it is trivial to have a link display "schmoo.com" but actually send you to "dastardlyevil.com" when clicked, this is actually usable advice. If the link displays an website address, one that is correct, highlight and copy the text and paste it directly into a browser's address bar. Barring that, right click on the link, copy the hidden link address, and paste that into the address bar. Of course then you should check carefully that the copied address isn't bougus. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 00:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 :Usually, any software I use will show the real address in the status bar when I hover the mouse over the link. I always check if these match, and if so, I know I can feel free to click (assuming said agreeing address is one I wish to visit, of course, LOL!) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 "If the smoke detector worked according to the authentication logic it will be less likely to detect smoke, effectively lessening fire safety as compared to a single sensor one"

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 22 July 2018
Line 59:		Line 59:

	::::That's why these days even credit cards have PIN numbers. And actually, e-Transfers are one of the most secure things I take part in. On both sides of the transfer (i.e. both me and the person I'm paying) we each individually have to have a login setup with our banks, one which uses our bank card number and/or account number (hence part of the reason for a North American's aversion to letting anybody know what it is), and which includes a password like any other login. So, for a person to steal money from me by transfering it out of my account, they'd need my login name (if my bank uses one) or card number or account number - whatever the bank uses to figure out who you are online, plus having to know which one they need to know. The thief can't just set up a new login attached to my account, because I already have one, and banks don't allow a duplicate account. They would also need my password. And for a person to intercept my transfer, in addition to all that (for my recipient this time) they'd also have to intercept the email - which my recipient knows to expect, usually within minutes of when the email will arrive - but also they would need to know the answer to the question I set, which would usually be information you only share with the recipient. I'm reminded of Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince, where for security all good people came up with personal security questions to confirm each-others identities. In this case it can be as simple as "Where am I right now?", which you would have discussed when arranging payment, or "Where did we meet?" or "What teacher did we both have?", stuff like that. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76\|162.158.126.76]] 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Mine too! [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)		::::That's why these days even credit cards have PIN numbers. And actually, e-Transfers are one of the most secure things I take part in. On both sides of the transfer (i.e. both me and the person I'm paying) we each individually have to have a login setup with our banks, one which uses our bank card number and/or account number (hence part of the reason for a North American's aversion to letting anybody know what it is), and which includes a password like any other login. So, for a person to steal money from me by transfering it out of my account, they'd need my login name (if my bank uses one) or card number or account number - whatever the bank uses to figure out who you are online, plus having to know which one they need to know. The thief can't just set up a new login attached to my account, because I already have one, and banks don't allow a duplicate account. They would also need my password. And for a person to intercept my transfer, in addition to all that (for my recipient this time) they'd also have to intercept the email - which my recipient knows to expect, usually within minutes of when the email will arrive - but also they would need to know the answer to the question I set, which would usually be information you only share with the recipient. I'm reminded of Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince, where for security all good people came up with personal security questions to confirm each-others identities. In this case it can be as simple as "Where am I right now?", which you would have discussed when arranging payment, or "Where did we meet?" or "What teacher did we both have?", stuff like that. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76\|162.158.126.76]] 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Mine too! [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::::In the UK in 2008, the UK government lost 25 million sets of bank account details (on two unencrypted CDs sent through the post - this kind of data breach is a common pastime of UK government departments). Jeremy Clarkson claimed there was no security problem, and to prove it, he published his bank account and sort code. Within days somebody had donated £500 from his account to Diabetes UK. [[User:Cosmogoblin\|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin\|talk]]) 16:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

	<I>"Don't click links to web sites"</I><BR>		<I>"Don't click links to web sites"</I><BR>

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 :Yeah from my, Dutch, view that part also seems strange. Like "I'm not telling you my e-mail address so you can't read my e-mail". Also, anyone you ever sent money to gets to know your account number don't they? After that, can they just walk into a bank saying "Hi I'm John, account number 12345, give me $5000 please"? I'd like a comic showing my accountnumber to test how I'd be hurt by telling the whole world :)  It gets stranger, in order to get a refund to my credit card I not only had to give my credit card number but the expiry date as well. I always considered the expiry date as a very simple password to prove you have the card itself. This felt more like "You wouldn't want total strangers to put money on your account, would you?" (thinking about it, maybe it's used as a "checksum"). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.211|162.158.111.211]] 22:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
-::As a North American, around here it seems like allowing someone to know your account number potentially gives a thief a target. If they manage to somehow hack their way into your bank, they now know a valid account number to aim for. Much less suspicious than trying their luck with picking one at random. Also, when we transfer money to each other, the account number doesn't enter into it. I go to my bank's website, start an e-Transfer, and tell it to send X dollars to this email account, and I add a security question - "What's my favourite online comic?" - and the answer - "xkcd". They get the email, select what bank they want to deposit the money too (and login to their bank's website), then give the arranged or known answer to my question. Our account numbers are only used / shared with our own respective banks. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 07:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
+::As a North American, around here it seems like allowing someone to know your account number potentially gives a thief a target. If they manage to somehow hack their way into your bank, they now know a valid account number to aim for. Much less suspicious than trying their luck with picking one at random. Also, when we transfer money to each other, the account number doesn't enter into it. I go to my bank's website, start an e-Transfer, and tell it to send X dollars to this email account, and I add a security question - "What's my favourite online comic?" - and the answer - "xkcd". They get the email, select what bank they want to deposit the money to (and login to their bank's website), then give the arranged or known answer to my question. Our account numbers are only used / shared with our own respective banks. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 07:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 :::There is nothing secure on credit card. Even the Card Security Code number is only protected by people not being allowed to store it in database. Yeah I'm sure thieves would comply with this rule. And that e-Transfer ... so, if someone intercepts that email and tells the bank it come to his email address, the bank would send the money to him? Doesn't seem safe either ; email is very insecure way to exchange data. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 * Use a burner's phone
 While it's possible that "burner" could refer to someone who attends the Burning Man festival, I believe it's more likely this is referring to someone who smokes marijuana, which is a common term in popular informal English. This also makes a nice connection with the part about typical usage of burner phones by drug dealers. --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 14:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 :Yeah - beat me to it!  The rice trick doesn't work...not for phones or anything else for that matter.  So this is double bad advice. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.39|162.158.69.39]] 16:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
-::As someone who has worked with electronics, educated in electronics design, I find the most effective solution is to remove all power as quickly as possible - unplug it and remove the battery - then let it dry out. Liquid damages by allowing electricity to take paths it shouldn't. No power, no problem. Which is why I don't and will never trust any device which doesn't allow you to quickly pop out the battery (iPads and many iPhones, for example). No battery pull means risk to me. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 07:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
+::As someone who has worked with electronics, educated in electronics design, I find the most effective solution is to remove all power as quickly as possible - unplug it and remove the battery - then let it dry out. Liquid damages by allowing electricity to take paths it shouldn't. No power, no problem. Which is why I don't and will never trust any device which doesn't allow you to quickly pop out the battery (iPads and many iPhones, for example). No battery pull means risk to me. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 07:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 Border guard - I'd like to see a bit more explanation, please, on how Ingmar Berman's film shows a man playing chess with Death, and possibly the infamous subversion of this trope in Bill And Ted's Bogus Journey.  As it is, the explanation is only the ''bare bones''. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.52|172.68.34.52]] 17:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 :Yeah from my, Dutch, view that part also seems strange. Like "I'm not telling you my e-mail address so you can't read my e-mail". Also, anyone you ever sent money to gets to know your account number don't they? After that, can they just walk into a bank saying "Hi I'm John, account number 12345, give me $5000 please"? I'd like a comic showing my accountnumber to test how I'd be hurt by telling the whole world :)  It gets stranger, in order to get a refund to my credit card I not only had to give my credit card number but the expiry date as well. I always considered the expiry date as a very simple password to prove you have the card itself. This felt more like "You wouldn't want total strangers to put money on your account, would you?" (thinking about it, maybe it's used as a "checksum"). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.211|162.158.111.211]] 22:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
-::As a North American, around here it seems like allowing someone to know your account number potentially gives a thief a target. If they manage to somehow hack their way into your bank, they now know a valid account number to aim for. Much less suspicious than trying their luck with picking one at random. Also, when we transfer money to each other, the account number doesn't enter into it. I go to my bank's website, start an e-Transfer, and tell it to send X dollars to this email account, and I add a security question - "What's my favourite online comic?" - and the answer - "xkcd". They get the email, select what bank they want to deposit the money too (and login to their bank's website), then give the arranged or known answer to my question. Our account numbers are only used / shared with our own respective banks. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 07:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
+::As a North American, around here it seems like allowing someone to know your account number potentially gives a thief a target. If they manage to somehow hack their way into your bank, they now know a valid account number to aim for. Much less suspicious than trying their luck with picking one at random. Also, when we transfer money to each other, the account number doesn't enter into it. I go to my bank's website, start an e-Transfer, and tell it to send X dollars to this email account, and I add a security question - "What's my favourite online comic?" - and the answer - "xkcd". They get the email, select what bank they want to deposit the money too (and login to their bank's website), then give the arranged or known answer to my question. Our account numbers are only used / shared with our own respective banks. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 07:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 :::There is nothing secure on credit card. Even the Card Security Code number is only protected by people not being allowed to store it in database. Yeah I'm sure thieves would comply with this rule. And that e-Transfer ... so, if someone intercepts that email and tells the bank it come to his email address, the bank would send the money to him? Doesn't seem safe either ; email is very insecure way to exchange data. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
-::::That's why these days even credit cards have PIN numbers. And actually, e-Transfers are one of the most secure things I take part in. On both sides of the transfer (i.e. both me and the person I'm paying) we each individually have to have a login setup with our banks, one which uses our bank card number and/or account number (hence part of the reason for a North American's aversion to letting anybody know what it is), and which includes a password like any other login. So, for a person to steal money from me by transfering it out of my account, they'd need my login name (if my bank uses one) or card number or account number - whatever the bank uses to figure out who you are online, plus having to know which one they need to know. The thief can't just set up a new login attached to my account, because I already have one, and banks don't allow a duplicate account. They would also need my password. And for a person to intercept my transfer, in addition to all that (for my recipient this time) they'd also have to intercept the email - which my recipient knows to expect, usually within minutes of when the email will arrive - but also they would need to know the answer to the question I set, which would usually be information you only share with the recipient. I'm reminded of Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince, where for security all good people came up with personal security questions to confirm each-others identities. In this case it can be as simple as "Where am I right now?", which you would have discussed when arranging payment, or "Where did we meet?" or "What teacher did we both have?", stuff like that. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
+::::That's why these days even credit cards have PIN numbers. And actually, e-Transfers are one of the most secure things I take part in. On both sides of the transfer (i.e. both me and the person I'm paying) we each individually have to have a login setup with our banks, one which uses our bank card number and/or account number (hence part of the reason for a North American's aversion to letting anybody know what it is), and which includes a password like any other login. So, for a person to steal money from me by transfering it out of my account, they'd need my login name (if my bank uses one) or card number or account number - whatever the bank uses to figure out who you are online, plus having to know which one they need to know. The thief can't just set up a new login attached to my account, because I already have one, and banks don't allow a duplicate account. They would also need my password. And for a person to intercept my transfer, in addition to all that (for my recipient this time) they'd also have to intercept the email - which my recipient knows to expect, usually within minutes of when the email will arrive - but also they would need to know the answer to the question I set, which would usually be information you only share with the recipient. I'm reminded of Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince, where for security all good people came up with personal security questions to confirm each-others identities. In this case it can be as simple as "Where am I right now?", which you would have discussed when arranging payment, or "Where did we meet?" or "What teacher did we both have?", stuff like that. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Mine too! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 <I>"Don't click links to web sites"</I><BR>
 Because it is trivial to have a link display "schmoo.com" but actually send you to "dastardlyevil.com" when clicked, this is actually usable advice. If the link displays an website address, one that is correct, highlight and copy the text and paste it directly into a browser's address bar. Barring that, right click on the link, copy the hidden link address, and paste that into the address bar. Of course then you should check carefully that the copied address isn't bougus. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 00:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
-:Usually, any software I use will show the real address in the status bar when I hover the mouse over the link. I always check if these match, and if so, I know I can feel free to click (assuming said agreeing address is one I wish to visit, of course, LOL!) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
+:Usually, any software I use will show the real address in the status bar when I hover the mouse over the link. I always check if these match, and if so, I know I can feel free to click (assuming said agreeing address is one I wish to visit, of course, LOL!) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 "If the smoke detector worked according to the authentication logic it will be less likely to detect smoke, effectively lessening fire safety as compared to a single sensor one"
@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 It'll be less likely to detect fire, but that does not necessarily mean lesser safety. There is a possibility of a "fire alarm that cried wolf" syndrome. If there is ever a real emergency, you really don't want people think "it's probably just another smoking toaster, I have time to take a quick shower and brush my teeth before I leave". --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.52|172.68.54.52]] 08:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 :The point here is not more safety but fewer false alarms. Similarly in rooms were you have "smoke" regularly you might either install a detector that doesn't scan for smoke but instead for heat or infrared light or you might install two smoke detectors in the far corners of a larger room, that only give an alarm if they both detect smoke. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.126|162.158.90.126]] 13:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
-::In a two-alarm system like that, you could have a small fire break out close to one detector that, by the time it has created enough smoke to trigger the far detector and start the alarm, has grown to the point that it has now become difficult to fight, and at the very least has caused considerable damage which could have been prevented if only the first detector had "spoken up" immediately. A system that second-guesses itself is NOT good. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
+::In a two-alarm system like that, you could have a small fire break out close to one detector that, by the time it has created enough smoke to trigger the far detector and start the alarm, has grown to the point that it has now become difficult to fight, and at the very least has caused considerable damage which could have been prevented if only the first detector had "spoken up" immediately. A system that second-guesses itself is NOT good. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 == Fourth amendment does not apply to border or customs searches ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:11, 8 June 2017
Line 75:		Line 75:

	In fact we don't need the entire paragraph about the fourth amendment.		In fact we don't need the entire paragraph about the fourth amendment.
		+
		+	* Use a burner's phone
		+	While it's possible that "burner" could refer to someone who attends the Burning Man festival, I believe it's more likely this is referring to someone who smokes marijuana, which is a common term in popular informal English. This also makes a nice connection with the part about typical usage of burner phones by drug dealers. --[[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 14:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:21, 19 April 2017
Line 69:		Line 69:
	:The point here is not more safety but fewer false alarms. Similarly in rooms were you have "smoke" regularly you might either install a detector that doesn't scan for smoke but instead for heat or infrared light or you might install two smoke detectors in the far corners of a larger room, that only give an alarm if they both detect smoke. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.126\|162.158.90.126]] 13:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)		:The point here is not more safety but fewer false alarms. Similarly in rooms were you have "smoke" regularly you might either install a detector that doesn't scan for smoke but instead for heat or infrared light or you might install two smoke detectors in the far corners of a larger room, that only give an alarm if they both detect smoke. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.126\|162.158.90.126]] 13:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
	::In a two-alarm system like that, you could have a small fire break out close to one detector that, by the time it has created enough smoke to trigger the far detector and start the alarm, has grown to the point that it has now become difficult to fight, and at the very least has caused considerable damage which could have been prevented if only the first detector had "spoken up" immediately. A system that second-guesses itself is NOT good. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76\|162.158.126.76]] 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)		::In a two-alarm system like that, you could have a small fire break out close to one detector that, by the time it has created enough smoke to trigger the far detector and start the alarm, has grown to the point that it has now become difficult to fight, and at the very least has caused considerable damage which could have been prevented if only the first detector had "spoken up" immediately. A system that second-guesses itself is NOT good. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76\|162.158.126.76]] 05:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Fourth amendment does not apply to border or customs searches ==
		+
		+	See border search exception: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
		+
		+	In fact we don't need the entire paragraph about the fourth amendment.