Slashdot Mirror
Distributed Security
A reader writes: ""Where Schneier had sought one overarching technical fix, hard experience had taught him the quest was illusory." A long and detailed article at The Atlantic Online on why Bruce Schneier has come down from his strong cryptography tower to preach the gospel of small scale, ductile security against the popular approach of broad scale, often high tech security that often proves to be very brittle."
But does this new approach mean that he supports ineroperability of PGP and S/MIME, or will they be forever two standards apart?
I asked my closed-source vendor about ubiqitous computing.
He answered "Oh no! You-not-be-quit-us!"
"Ice encountered...No, worse -- it's Frost!"
third!
yeah!
but holy shit that article was long... did you really expect /.ers to read that WHOLE thing?
slightly o/t... but meh... i'm a coward... a tiny little coward...
>> The US has killed over 800 innocent afghani civilians in their "war on terror". In my book
>> thats just as bad as killing 800 american citizens.
Prove to me that America was intentionally trying to kill innocent civilians, and I'll listen to you.
I know this country is far from perfect, but people get killed in war. No matter how good a system you have, innocent deaths are inevitable.
And if you try to use that as an excuse for war, then you're just begging for Jack Warlord to take over this country because we won't fight back.
Trying to minimize civilian deaths is always a good thing, but at this time, they cannot be minimized to zero. However, the intent is there...the intent to kill as few innocents as possible.
Terrorists, on the other hand, go after civilians with the INTENT to kill them. They're killing innocents simply to create fear.
I don't know about you, but to me, that counts as evil.
I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
You're right, but it's shit like that that makes everyone hate the US and Americans. The US kills people by accident and then their brothers come and kill US citizens on purpose. You can try to explain it away all you want by saying "well, that's war," but it doesn't do anything to mitigate the situation.
The point is that killing people is illegal in most countries, and is also a breach of human rights(!). For every innocent civilian that they kill the US makes more enemies, and loses more sympathisers. Whole-scale bombing of Afghanistan is not a solution - it is a problem. Or can you imagine the British government bombing Ireland because of IRA terrorist attacks? Or even better - bombing New York because the IRA is mainly US-funded? The exact same logic applies as in bombing Afghanistan.
Sadly, Teknogeek focused on one minor issue in my first post. My main, most important point is that to avoid future attacks the US must rethink their foreign policy. Attacking Iraq, or not, is one important milestone as to whether they can succeed in that. Attacking Afghanistan was the first test, which they failed miserably.
I asked my closed-source vendor about ubiqitous computing.
He answered "Oh no! You-not-be-quit-us!"
CmdrTaco replies:
It's impossible for us to ensure there are no repeats! To make sure of that, we'd need some sort of way to go through the previous stories, repetitively checking for duplicates. It would take a vast army of clerks who are currently better employed in totting up our accounts, taking post between departments and copying our important documents. What possible other way could there be to do it?