Slashdot Mirror

Who is dreaming?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/14/bradley-manning-statement-sentencing-trial

The problem is that the NSA and GCHQ have dual mandates. They are responsible for both ensuring their respective countries are not vulnerable to attacks and for ensuring that they have techniques for attacking others.

I read a science fiction story a year ago (Daemon) that had the absolute best idea of very specific crypto usage, and I _really think_ the current NSA and such have always been implementing that.

They assume that "We're [the NSA] Number One" and everybody else is either behind or way, WAY behind. So: they weaken the initial crypto magic number standards just enough so that they can still manage to break it. #2 will eventually figure it out (or 13 can just ask 1600) and the #3 guys could just ask nicely, but #23 will just never get it, even though they're all playing the catch-up game. So NSA weakened crypto would apply to public content and most secrets with a time sensitive content; the REAL secrets use the non-weakened crypto strain or OTP.

Thus the NSA can walk the fine line that pays tribute to both of their conflicting demands: it's secure from everyone else, but not secure from THEM (the NSA) unless they want it to be.

But if somehow on-demand the NSA can't break into the crypto, there's always the $5,000 wrench. (This IS the government we're talking about, remember.)

It makes the press http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

The root cause are not those. The root cause is that there is profit to be made, and that profit justifies things like replacing cleaner transportation alternatives with polluting ones.

There is just no profit in building an economy over renovable energies. The pipe that make everything run must be controlled, specially if is done by a few (and if new players come in the government is always willing to help them). And if that non-renovable but tight controllable energy is polluting, too bad, but they will do anything in their hand to avoid that the dependence on them weakens.

Spying is a product of and benefit to: government (keeps them in power), corporations (keeps them making money) and the media (who dance around and cheer everyone on while making money).
Spying has no benefit to the average citizen.
Interesting (and humorous) take on this by Russell Brand in The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/sep/13/russell-brand-gq-awards-hugo-boss

My dear God in heaven!

You lost me right there. While there is a vast and increasing amount of evidence for role in Earth's changing climate, there isn't any evidence at all for this "God" character you're referring to. Your argument against climate change basically appears to be "it's too complex to know" (granted, for you perhaps...) and "we're getting the wool pulled over our eyes with all the propaganda". How about you forget the hype and actually spend some time looking into the science?

I was going to suggest you read the following article but it sounds like you've already made up your own mind without really giving a crap about the underlying facts.

climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial

Here's one more that is also iOS compatible: http://www.theguardian.com/global/2013/sep/16/concordia-salvage-operation-giglio-parbuckling-live-updates

In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this auspicious report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories.

• $ __2.6 billion -- US climate research proposal 2013 (source)
• $ 856.5 billion -- US defense spending 2013 (source)

So, you could make the enormous climate research spending budget-neutral, by reducing the military spending by 0.3 %. Or, if you slash the military budget by a staggering 0.6%, you could spend that money on climate research *AND* on subsidizing better house insulation for poor people, because what you say is actually a really good plan, like they do in the UK. (Woops.. they planned to do in the UK; Cameron shot his coalition partner's plan down apparently

Any comment?

Ugh.

So people have bought then, hook, line, etc., the total lie that Assad used gas on his own people. He didn't.

http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/1958

http://rt.com/news/turkey-syria-chemical-weapons-850/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418378/Syrian-hostage-Domenico-Quirico-overheard-rebels-blame-Damascus-chemical-attacks.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/504735/20130909/syria-chemical-attack-assad-rebels-blame-hostage.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/06/syri-j13.html

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/obama-warned-on-syrian-intel/

http://www.voltairenet.org/article180149.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-military-and-intelligence-officials-to-obama-assad-not-responsible-for-chemical-attack/5348576

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/verify-chemical-weapons-use-before-unleashing-the-dogs-of-war/

I'll just leave this here in the delusion you'll actually fucking read it.

FREEDOM Mega Huge Internet Company Definition
1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. (Self Control)
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. (Self Control)
3.the power to determine action without restraint. (Self Control)
4.political or national independence. (Macro Level Self Control)
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom. (Self Control)

SELF CONTROL Mega Huge Internet Company Definition
1.control or restraint of oneself or one's actions, feelings, etc.

FREEDOM Encyclopedia Company Definition
1: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action (Self Control)
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another (Self Control)
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something oppressive (Self Control)
d : ease, facility (Self Control)
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution (Self Control)
h : unrestricted use (Self Control)
2
a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege

SELF CONTROL Encyclopedia Company Definition
restraint exercised over one's own impulses, emotions, or desires

FREEDOM Community Voted Definition
1. Something the American people just think they have.
2. Being able to make choices. Performing an action of your own choosing. Freedom will always be relative to the environment/situation which you inhabit.
3. Freedom is basically the right to be treated as an equal.
No-one has the right to exert any form of power over another, for any reason at all.
We all differ physically & intellectually; and circumstances do vary based both on merit and luck. We however diminish ourselves by using any of these 'advantages' to exert power.
Anyone who believes that they are better than another for whatever reason; is basically shallow and deluded.
If you do the right thing for the right reason and positively benefit the universe; you are far more likely to achieve happiness and essentially be at peace with yourself. Your conscience will always be there, it will always remember and it will hold you accountable. Do not delude yourself on this; the easy path often leads to great peril for your soul.
When you are doing something wrong, you are aware of it. You can lie to yourself (as many do), but what is the point? really that is just silly.
It is just as easy to make the right choice as is it to make the wrong one.
You have the freedom to disobey orders or rules (Refer norms).
You have the strength to do what needs to be done to try to benefit everything that exists.

Okay; I understand that things may already be in place; things are unfortunately not that simple. however, you can change your job, you can quit the military (hopefully), you can change how you act!!
It is possible to be in charge of a 100 people and not be an arsehole. If you are in charge of that many people you have the privilege of being able to increase the happiness of all of those souls. Sure, some of them wont appreciate it (Refer: Bogan) and there may be a price to pay, depending on the action that you take (remember: small steps still lead somewhere). But, it is still the right thing - its that simple.
Do you think you are something special? - prove it

"

If you believe a word the Daily Mail says, you're a fool.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2012/dec/11/should-we-ban-helium-balloons

Obama did that too, in other countries.

"I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable," Obama said. "They can begin to think for themselves."

People should be free to share information (except about the US) and criticize their (non-US) governments.

So you're concerned about "children, women and other civilians?"

I have some distressing news for you then.

The only criteria I propose putting in place is being motivated enough to trundle your backside up to the polling place and make a mark on paper

You led me to believe you had stricter standards when you wrote: "since they cared and were informed, they would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows would have gone."

No; as long as people can cast their preferences it is the geese guarding the geese.

Seems to be a species of the formal vs practical freedom problem. In practice voting below the line has become too arduous (added to the fact that the votes of those of us who do take up undue time in to booth to do so are counted last, if at all), and practically no-one can understand the actual effect of their above the line vote.

Maybe you just like lamingtons.

Lamingtons? You get lamingtons at your polling station ... damn ... where do you live?

If you don't want them to be the party they nominate, who would you delegate to distribute those preferences? Any option I can see is a more egregious case of vulpine poultry guardianship than the current setup.

The most obvious solution, and the one which most offends my philosophical sensibilities, is simply to exhaust the vote after it has reached its last stated preference. So if you had to make a minimum of 3 votes and voted 1. One Nation 2. Socialist Alliance and 3. Liberal/National your vote could never be used to elect anyone not in those three groupings. And BTW, with preferential above-the-line, there is a problem, though perhaps not an insurmountable one, of what to do about ungrouped independents.

Or we allocate the remaining preferences based on a knowledge base using statistical analysis of what other voters who had the same early preferences selected further down on their ballots. ;)

And this is due entirely to your aforementioned fox-henhouse scenario

I thought it was all geese/geese. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too, or did I simply confuse my animal analogy ... I was trying to avoid wolves and sheep. But sure, the majors would be motivated to do that, and yes it's time to squawk.

Both majors don't want anyone not aligned to them in power.

Clearly. There's an article in the Guardian about this today and an interesting comment put by one iMurray, who thinks, "the biggest problem is not the fringe candidates like the Motoring Enthusiasts guy who sneak in - it's the prevalence of the major parties and the way they operate in the Senate."

You're from the SAME hometown as myself, only minutes apart, but you are disappointing me man... wtf!

---

NSA analysts 'wilfully violated' surveillance systems, agency admits:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/nsa-analysts-abused-surveillance-systems

---

* THAT was what "took the cake" for me, finally!

Sir, you MAY be out to do "the right thing" & oddly enough? I suspect you are that kind of person - I honestly do!

HOWEVER: Imo @ least - You're INCORRECTLY 'projecting' YOUR VALUES onto those in your peers, AND subordinates - assuming they too are like you claim to be! THAT is where you are going wrong!

(That is NOT going to "hold true" in all cases - heck, I suspect honestly not in many of them!)

APK

P.S.=> I've been saying this to all the folks here since day #1 when this mess came out, even to my representatives in gov't. via the ACLU: "Absolute Power, Corrupts Absolutely" & THAT is the "big flaw" in what you've created! That article link above only proved it all the more, for me (wish I was wrong).

The more I see of this shit, the more ill I become, this especially - I mean, wtf do Jews in Israel have to have ANYTHING from us internally, about US (U.S. Citizenry) for? apk

They are also spying on local business and giving the insider information to foreign intelligence agencies. Why do you think the israeli military intelligence unit is driving the israeli tech boom?

Here is my submission:

NSA is sharing personal data of americans and corporations with Israel. The secret deal places no legal limits on the use of data and only official US government communications are protected by the expectation of israeli agents removing such data as soon as it's identified. NSA insists that it complies with the rules governing privacy. There is now maybe less wonder that UNIT 8200 is driving the tech boom in Israel as they get to handle all the raw intelligence and insider information.

Here is my submission:

NSA is sharing personal data of americans and corporations with Israel. The secret deal places no legal limits on the use of data and only official US government communications are protected by the expectation of israeli agents removing such data as soon as it's identified. NSA insists that it complies with the rules governing privacy. There is now maybe less wonder that UNIT 8200 is driving the tech boom in Israel as they get to handle all the raw intelligence and insider information.

Here is my submission:

NSA is sharing personal data of americans and corporations with Israel. The secret deal places no legal limits on the use of data and only official US government communications are protected by the expectation of israeli agents removing such data as soon as it's identified. NSA insists that it complies with the rules governing privacy. There is now maybe less wonder that UNIT 8200 is driving the tech boom in Israel as they get to handle all the raw intelligence and insider information.

One interesting factoid I learned from David E Hoffman's book The Dead Hand was that, according to Reagan's biography, the only time the Gipper mentioned being depressed in his diaries was after watching The Day After. Dunno if he or Iron Maggie caught Threads, that probably would have brought the whole Cold War to an abrupt stop. That flick is about as grim as can be imagined. Babby kom!

TDA really apparently did a number on Reagan, though - before that he was hawkish and then some, albeit realizing that a wind down of the Cold War in some fashion or another was essential; but afterwards he really began to take more of a direct approach to curtailing weapons stockpiles and the like.

Hoffman's book is highly recommended for its fright value, too - towards the end it has accounts from the late 90s of Russian weapons grade plutonium stockpiles being held behind doors sealed shut with "Civil War" class bolts and locks...

Every gov knows what Russia, the UK and US do with their "Consulate" floors

Oh come now A., the club is bigger than that! The majority of countries get in on the spy game at some level.
The Germans: The German Prism: Berlin Wants to Spy
Very involved in the current crisis: Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press
The Finns and Swedes can't be left out: Supo wants expanded net surveillance powers
Nor the French: France 'runs vast electronic spying operation using NSA-style methods'
The club is bigger still: Think US snooping is bad? Try Italy, India orCanada
Thousands of Russian spies in US: ex-CIA agent
Gordievsky: Russia has as many spies in Britain now as the USSR ever did
Chinese Spies Targeting U.K., MI5 Warns
But of course! Chinese use honeytraps to spy on French companies, intelligence report claims
Germany accuses China of industrial espionage
Germany targets Russian, Chinese spies
Spies in Sweden mostly from China, Russia, Iran
Number of Foreign Spies on the Rise in Finland
Austrian capital ‘filled with Iranian spies’
Foreign spies targeting Polish shale - Natural Gas Europe
Spain arrests three suspected of spying for Iran
Russia warns Ireland it will retaliate in spy row
FBI releases papers on Russian Irish spies in US - ‘Ghost Stories’

Sometimes the trails can get very complicated.

For some reason this video comes to mind: Its a Small World

Every gov knows what Russia, the UK and US do with their "Consulate" floors

Oh come now A., the club is bigger than that! The majority of countries get in on the spy game at some level.
The Germans: The German Prism: Berlin Wants to Spy
Very involved in the current crisis: Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press
The Finns and Swedes can't be left out: Supo wants expanded net surveillance powers
Nor the French: France 'runs vast electronic spying operation using NSA-style methods'
The club is bigger still: Think US snooping is bad? Try Italy, India orCanada
Thousands of Russian spies in US: ex-CIA agent
Gordievsky: Russia has as many spies in Britain now as the USSR ever did
Chinese Spies Targeting U.K., MI5 Warns
But of course! Chinese use honeytraps to spy on French companies, intelligence report claims
Germany accuses China of industrial espionage
Germany targets Russian, Chinese spies
Spies in Sweden mostly from China, Russia, Iran
Number of Foreign Spies on the Rise in Finland
Austrian capital ‘filled with Iranian spies’
Foreign spies targeting Polish shale - Natural Gas Europe
Spain arrests three suspected of spying for Iran
Russia warns Ireland it will retaliate in spy row
FBI releases papers on Russian Irish spies in US - ‘Ghost Stories’

Sometimes the trails can get very complicated.

For some reason this video comes to mind: Its a Small World

Every gov knows what Russia, the UK and US do with their "Consulate" floors

Oh come now A., the club is bigger than that! The majority of countries get in on the spy game at some level.
The Germans: The German Prism: Berlin Wants to Spy
Very involved in the current crisis: Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press
The Finns and Swedes can't be left out: Supo wants expanded net surveillance powers
Nor the French: France 'runs vast electronic spying operation using NSA-style methods'
The club is bigger still: Think US snooping is bad? Try Italy, India orCanada
Thousands of Russian spies in US: ex-CIA agent
Gordievsky: Russia has as many spies in Britain now as the USSR ever did
Chinese Spies Targeting U.K., MI5 Warns
But of course! Chinese use honeytraps to spy on French companies, intelligence report claims
Germany accuses China of industrial espionage
Germany targets Russian, Chinese spies
Spies in Sweden mostly from China, Russia, Iran
Number of Foreign Spies on the Rise in Finland
Austrian capital ‘filled with Iranian spies’
Foreign spies targeting Polish shale - Natural Gas Europe
Spain arrests three suspected of spying for Iran
Russia warns Ireland it will retaliate in spy row
FBI releases papers on Russian Irish spies in US - ‘Ghost Stories’

Sometimes the trails can get very complicated.

For some reason this video comes to mind: Its a Small World

Every gov knows what Russia, the UK and US do with their "Consulate" floors

Oh come now A., the club is bigger than that! The majority of countries get in on the spy game at some level.
The Germans: The German Prism: Berlin Wants to Spy
Very involved in the current crisis: Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press
The Finns and Swedes can't be left out: Supo wants expanded net surveillance powers
Nor the French: France 'runs vast electronic spying operation using NSA-style methods'
The club is bigger still: Think US snooping is bad? Try Italy, India orCanada
Thousands of Russian spies in US: ex-CIA agent
Gordievsky: Russia has as many spies in Britain now as the USSR ever did
Chinese Spies Targeting U.K., MI5 Warns
But of course! Chinese use honeytraps to spy on French companies, intelligence report claims
Germany accuses China of industrial espionage
Germany targets Russian, Chinese spies
Spies in Sweden mostly from China, Russia, Iran
Number of Foreign Spies on the Rise in Finland
Austrian capital ‘filled with Iranian spies’
Foreign spies targeting Polish shale - Natural Gas Europe
Spain arrests three suspected of spying for Iran
Russia warns Ireland it will retaliate in spy row
FBI releases papers on Russian Irish spies in US - ‘Ghost Stories’

Sometimes the trails can get very complicated.

For some reason this video comes to mind: Its a Small World

Oh, forgot the link.

I think you missed something:

Chinese protest at planned chemical plant over pollution fears

A similar protest earlier this month in Chengdu, the capital of adjacent Sichuan province, was suppressed by police.

Sometimes the party is willing, but the police are weak.

On the other hand, the Chinese government has been liberalizing in various aspects. I think this incident was quite remarkable:

Chinese Villagers Under Siege Mourn Man Who Died

Of course, then there are these two items:
China's Leader Embraces Mao as He Tightens Grip on Country
China Takes Aim at Western Ideas

I think I now have enough hands to be an economist.

China, on the other hand, clamps down on people that attempt to organize, march, or otherwise engage in activism.

You're trolling again...

In case you don't want to read the link:

In August 2011 a protest in the north-eastern city Dalian led local authorities to announce that they were would relocate a polluting PX plant. The following summer, the coastal city Qidong scrapped a pipeline plan after about a thousand protesters stormed government offices and overturned cars.

80% of climate scientists who were asked last year expected more ice this year than 2013. So this is hardly an unforseen event. The blog link mentioned in the summary explains why, but I'll repeat it since you didn't read it.

Arctic ice volume has a falling long-term trends, but on top of that there are short-term year-by-year changes. You effectively have a long-term signal with short-term noise on it. As you can see from this figure, the trend is about -0.065 million square kilometers per year, while the year-to-year variations are 0.5-1 million square kilometers. Hence, on a short timescale you can basically only see the yearly random variations. If you suddenly see a large jump, it is much more likely to be a short-term change than a long term one, and several years of observations are needed to see if the long-term behavior has changed or not.

The point now is that if you happen to get a particularly low value of the random yearly variations one year, you are likely to get a larger value the next year. Much like if you roll a die and get a 1, you are likely to get a larger value the next time you roll, simply because there are more values (2,3,4,5,6) that are larger than 1 than those that aren't (1). In general, extreme values are unlikely, and the chance of getting several of them in a row is much lower than getting one of them followed by less extreme values. This is called regression toward the mean.

So to summarize, this was expected, and predicted, and no models will have to be changed based on this observation.

What about this and this ? (Interesting how current media did not bring up that repetition of history)

Most of NSA and CIA funding comes from the transport and sale of contraband, weapons, drugs, any other 'controlled' substance, and money laundering through the banks.

Yeah, I just read that entire article, and I don't see a single mention of the NSA or CIA. Do you have any actual citations, or only unrelated ones?

Oh please, stop with this 'cut off funding' crap. It's a tear drop in the ocean. Most of NSA and CIA funding comes from the transport and sale of contraband, weapons, drugs, any other 'controlled' substance, and money laundering through the banks. Or do you actually believe that the Iran/Contra hearings put a stop to it? They are rogues in every sense of the word, and now they have the power to keep it going indefinitely.

It this story an ought right lie? Yes, I believe so. Why?

Why are we learning about this? Well, obviously the NSA is simply trying to justify itself against the backdrop of everything Snowden exposed.

Imagine the NSA, etc. actually intercepted this order. What does that mean? If it's real intel, then they burned both that intel, and their ability to decode future communications form Iran. Alright, maybe Iran sends blustering bullshit messages to Iraqi Shiites all the time, but even if so the NSA should want to ability to gain some sense and intel from that bluster.

We therefore conclude that, if they are not lying here, then they're directly placing our Iraqi allies in harms way, as well as American security contractors, merely to earn themselves political points. I'd consider that treason if they were endangering American solders. It's not treason endangering allies, but it's still extremely despicable behavior and very short sighted. I therefore choose to believe this story is an ought right lie because the alternative paints the administration and NSA as far worse.

Now why fabricate or tell this story now? In fact, the Department of Defense claims the NSA "does ***not*** engage in economic espionage in any domain, including cyber" (asterisks in original quote), but Greenwald says :

"One big problem the NSA and US government generally have had since our reporting began is that their defenses offered in response to each individual story are quickly proven to be false by the next story, which just further undermines their credibility around the world. That NSA denial I just excerpted above has already been disproven by several reports (see, for instance, the letter published in this article, or the last document published here), but after Sunday, I think it will prove to be perhaps the NSA's most misleading statement yet.

So tonight or tomorrow we likely learn that the NSA conducts economic espionage against friendly nations.

You can't lump all of the publishers together and call them 'multiple sellers', because they all sell different products.

They all sell books. Sure, books are more differentiated than, say, strawberries, but the vast majority of them are not strongly differentiated and are fairly expendable. They're simply books. If there was only one chain of theaters in your nation, would you be making the same argument about the movie studios?

If Amazon doesn't get some ridiculously low price for an ebook, what are they going to do, not sell it?

Uh, yes, that's exactly what Amazon has done and continues to do. They pulled all Macmillan books in response to a pricing dispute they had with the publisher back before the switch to the agency model, and they did it again just last year in response to another publisher who refused to lower their prices. The Macmillan issue was kinda a big deal at the time, and it was happening right in the middle of all of this stuff I'm talking about, hence why it was a valid concern that the publishers had.

As soon as they refuse to sell a book the door is thrown wide open for competitors to sell the book.

Sure...in theory. In practice, however, what alternative would the publishers have? At the time that this stuff was going on, Amazon had over 90% market share in the eBooks industry. B&N was the next closest, with less than 10%. Unless the publisher wanted to tank their own business, their only choice was to make a deal with Amazon, since they sure as hell couldn't hope that people would go out and buy a second $200 eBook reader from a competitor of Amazon's just so that they could read the books from that publisher.

If you look elsewhere http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-how-to-remain-secure-surveillance, he is saying that there are some constants that he doesn't trust. Perhaps the method is sound, and you should just use a different variation of it. Elliptic curve cryptography is often batted about as a method that does not have an easy solution with a quantum computer... perhaps there are governments out there that have developed quantum computers finally.

Frankly, ROT13 probably would confuse the heck out of most people, if you just put it somewhere you weren't expecting it.

On more than one occasion Israel has bombed Iran

When? There were a few mysterious explosions and assassinations but I don't recall anything other than that.. Syria on the other hand was bombed, as was Iraq.

What I have not seen in this time is Iran retaliate, start a war, or massacre their allegedly sworn enemies.

Then you've been looking the wrong way - Iran has for a long time waged war through its proxies, Hezbollah for example being the main Iranian weapon which it has used many times to bomb Israel and Israeli/Jewish civilians around the world on numerous occasions. There is nothing innocent about Iran, they have plenty of blood on their hands and the extreme islamist regime there is plenty evil without any help from the west.

As for this allegedly intercepted message.. I don't know how true it is but it certainly does not surprise me since for a start it follows their usual method of getting their proxies to do the dirty work and secondly, perhaps more importantly - Iran and Syria have a number of widely publicised mutual self-defence pacts for just such a situation so Iran is now obligated to join the fight with Syria if/when the US attacks.

Bruce Schneier himself advises avoiding elliptic-curve, as being intellectually tainted by the spooks. [theguardian.com]

I didn't see any such recommendation in the linked article. However, there is a comment in this article in which he does make such a statement. Schneier seems to have reversed himself on advocating the use of elliptic-curve ciphers.

Just use bigger DH, with better cipher. AES-256? Maybe. Twofish? OK.

Bruce Schneier himself advises avoiding elliptic-curve, as being intellectually tainted by the spooks.

that's what they want you to think.

Wrong Guardian Schneier link. :-)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-how-to-remain-secure-surveillance

From Item 5:
"Prefer symmetric cryptography over public-key cryptography. Prefer conventional discrete-log-based systems over elliptic-curve systems; the latter have constants that the NSA influences when they can."

Just use bigger DH, with better cipher. AES-256? Maybe. Twofish? OK.

Bruce Schneier himself advises avoiding elliptic-curve, as being intellectually tainted by the spooks.

You are only doing people a service when you get it right, which you aren't. Time for another correction....

FACT: Bush publicly declared that he wanted Al Qada to hand over Bin Laden immediately.

Correction: Bush told the Taliban that he wanted Bin Laden handed over immediately.

FACT: Al Qada leaders (Religious and Military) stated that if Bush could present them facts showing Bin Laden's guilt in terrorist activity, they would hand him over immediately.

Correction: No, they didn't. The Taliban said different things at different times, but not what you said.

In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country". The offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed Bush's "second chance" for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US. Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to "hand anyone over". -- Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

One thing that is left out here is that the US has previously tried to extradite Bin Laden from Afghanistan over the African embassy bombings. The US indicted Bin Laden and discussed the evidence with the Taliban. They didn't hand over Bin Laden then, there is no reason to believe they would after 9/11. The Taliban were not sincere in their offer. There is no way they could have handed over Bin Laden. Al Qaida was integrated into their government and military and the Taliban depended on them. It would have violated their tribal based norms, and torn the government apart. Interesting that you seem to trust the Taliban on this point though.

FACT: Bush denied the request for proof and invaded Afghanistan.

Correction: I think we just covered this. The Taliban refused the US demand when they already knew that Bin Laden must have been involved. Because they refused the demand, and harbored a terrorist mass murderer, they chose war.

So, you didn't really get the "facts" right, and left out major, important details.

I don't see much in the way of similarity between the current situation and the US demands to the Afghan government after 9/11 other than they both involve countries half a world away.

So supposedly the US and British found evidence that Syria had used sarin, but refused to divulge the details

Does this help?

Sarin gas was used in Syrian chemical weapons attack, says David Cameron

The positive tests for sarin were completed this week and made on clothes and soil taken from the site of the attack in Ghouta, eastern Damascus on 21 August. The tests were carried out in the past seven days by British scientists at the Porton Down facility, and will be deployed by Cameron in a fresh attempt to persuade the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to do more to force the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, to the negotiating table.

The samples brought to the UK from the Syrian borders are different to the hair and blood samples tested in the US. Details of those test results were released by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, four days ago.

Even if they're right, they're not promoting this for the right reason (telling the truth).. They're promoting it to push a political agenda (justification of center left politics, which means more funding for them).

1. What if there were large funds and grants to be had by saying that global warming is a myth? Wouldn't that mean that you're presumably money-grubbing scientists have an easier time just switching sides than they would trying to change the politics of the situation in the hopes that in a decade or two they could get more money?

2. Even if the politics of the situation changed, why would that result in more money for them? Presumably, the same number of people who are monitoring the increase in global average temperature could monitor the decrease just as easily, and any center-right politician could easily argue that point and keep their funding level at exactly what it is now. Or even decrease it, since they think they understand the problem now so no further research is needed.

3. If climate scientists were trying to get rich, wouldn't they have gone into a much higher-paying profession like finance? Companies like Goldman Sachs snap up would-be scientists all the time because they like their statistical and mathematical skills, and pay very very well. If there's a selfish motivation for scientists, I'd expect it to be vying for the chance to be immortalized with the name associated with a correct theory, the way Einstein, Darwin, Mendel, etc are. Being wrong doesn't help with that.

The claim that climate scientists are in it for the money just doesn't make sense: They aren't particularly stupid, and there are easier ways for them to make big bucks than providing reading material for Al Gore.

That's why they're suing the US federal government to be able to release the data. As of right now, they're being told that if they release it, they will be prosecuted. The article for those who don't want to Google it.

So then are you admitting or ignoring the fact that they've already compromised you?

That's why they're suing the US federal government to be able to release the data. As of right now, they're being told that if they release it, they will be prosecuted. The article for those who don't want to Google it.

Uncertainty: you can't trust closed source software

Schneier is talking about and responding to a news story is exactly about this - with examples right from the mouth of the NSA.

As to silent circle: you have no evidence that silent circle is compromised

...and there is no evidence that it is not. Worse, it is impossible for anyone to really check given its closed source nature which leads back to the whole basis for the news story and the evidence presented within. Further, Silent Circle have released select source code samples however journalists covering the company have assumed or been led to believe that their products is full open source peer reviewed - when it has not been - dishonest.

Fear: that you can't trust Schneier ... Doubt: maybe Schneier has a hidden agenda

Clearly a a straw man argument there. I never said or implied that you can't trust Schneier or that he has a hidden agenda. What I did imply and question, very clearly, was his recommendation of a questionable product - right after talking about why we can no longer trust these kinds of products, to quote:

As was revealed today, the NSA also works with security product vendors to ensure that commercial encryption products are broken in secret ways that only it knows about. We know this has happened historically: CryptoAG and Lotus Notes are the most public examples, and there is evidence of a back door in Windows. A few people have told me some recent stories about their experiences, and I plan to write about them soon. Basically, the NSA asks companies to subtly change their products in undetectable ways: making the random number generator less random, leaking the key somehow, adding a common exponent to a public-key exchange protocol, and so on. If the back door is discovered, it's explained away as a mistake. And as we now know, the NSA has enjoyed enormous success from this program.

As a widely read and listened to high profile security professional that many people take seriously (including myself) he does have a a heavy responsibility to be forthcoming when he recommends security software to people. Instead of just blurting out that he uses Silent Circle (and so you should too) he could have taken his responsibility more seriously and written something like: "Silent Circle, it is closed source and the news I am writing about todays shows that it falls into the high risk category - but it is the only thing we have got until it is open sourced and reviewed, or another FOSS competitor comes along. Use at your own risk don't use it with a false sense of security.".

Am I asking too much or spreading "FUD" - I don't think so.

Uncertainty: you can't trust closed source software

Schneier is talking about and responding to a news story is exactly about this - with examples right from the mouth of the NSA.

As to silent circle: you have no evidence that silent circle is compromised

...and there is no evidence that it is not. Worse, it is impossible for anyone to really check given its closed source nature which leads back to the whole basis for the news story and the evidence presented within. Further, Silent Circle have released select source code samples however journalists covering the company have assumed or been led to believe that their products is full open source peer reviewed - when it has not been - dishonest.

Fear: that you can't trust Schneier ... Doubt: maybe Schneier has a hidden agenda

Clearly a a straw man argument there. I never said or implied that you can't trust Schneier or that he has a hidden agenda. What I did imply and question, very clearly, was his recommendation of a questionable product - right after talking about why we can no longer trust these kinds of products, to quote:

As was revealed today, the NSA also works with security product vendors to ensure that commercial encryption products are broken in secret ways that only it knows about. We know this has happened historically: CryptoAG and Lotus Notes are the most public examples, and there is evidence of a back door in Windows. A few people have told me some recent stories about their experiences, and I plan to write about them soon. Basically, the NSA asks companies to subtly change their products in undetectable ways: making the random number generator less random, leaking the key somehow, adding a common exponent to a public-key exchange protocol, and so on. If the back door is discovered, it's explained away as a mistake. And as we now know, the NSA has enjoyed enormous success from this program.

As a widely read and listened to high profile security professional that many people take seriously (including myself) he does have a a heavy responsibility to be forthcoming when he recommends security software to people. Instead of just blurting out that he uses Silent Circle (and so you should too) he could have taken his responsibility more seriously and written something like: "Silent Circle, it is closed source and the news I am writing about todays shows that it falls into the high risk category - but it is the only thing we have got until it is open sourced and reviewed, or another FOSS competitor comes along. Use at your own risk don't use it with a false sense of security.".

Am I asking too much or spreading "FUD" - I don't think so.

You're basing this on a browser made by one of the companies known to have been cooperating with the NSA every step of the way, including the latest revelations about said companies inserting backdoors into their products?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Bigger question is why we aren't talking about the NSA breaking SSL.

Sorry your right I mixed up his article links. Here is the one I was quoting: "How to remain secure against NSA surveillance"