Slashdot Mirror
Government Shutdown: TLS Certificates Not Renewed, Many Websites Are Down (zdnet.com)
More than 80 TLS certificates used by US government websites have expired so far without being renewed, leaving some websites inaccessible to the public. From a report: NASA, the US Department of Justice, and the Court of Appeals are just some of the US government agencies currently impacted, according to Netcraft. The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall he promised during his election campaign. This has resulted in hundreds of thousands of government workers being furloughed across all government agencies, including staff handling IT support and cybersecurity. As a result, government websites are dropping like flies, with no one being on hand to renew TLS certificates.
If they set up Let's Encrypt properly, they can have automatic renewing of their certificates.
The government shutdown is going on 20 days. Today's date in Jan 11. You might wan to check on which party had majorities in both houses on congress when the shutdown began and who is being obstructionist. If there's anyone to thank or blame, it's Trump and the republicans.
Too bad only Democrats believe in personal responsibility.
They have been playing that game since Regan was in office. The shutdown is the only leverage the President has. If he signs appropriations bill he has no way to pressure Congress to make additional funds available for the wall and he knows it.
I know Nancy Pelosi knows it; and I bet you know it and are really just posturing.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Strangely the shutdown started when Republicans controlled the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.
It's almost like they staged this so that stooges like you would blame the not-yet-seated Democrats in a complete disconnect with reality.
Does it hurt to be so stupid as to fall for that?
If they pay for his wall because he has a tantrum, what's next?
He'll be shutting down the government for every last little thing until he gets his way.
There's no way anybody should give way on this (except The Donald, obviously).
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
No sig today...
No, it's her desire to see him not get a key campaign promise through and see him not get reelected in 2020. That's what this is about. They are willing to ensure than 800k federal employees don't get paid for months because they are that Hell-bent on seeing his chances reduced in 2020. That's it.
The Democrats supported every wasteful thing Bush and Obama put out there. They supported Obama's expansion on Bush's militarism.
The fact is that if Trump wanted $10B to bomb a randomly named country, half the Democrats would give him the money. It's only--only--when that money is put toward something that is a core campaign promise and related to what people want (border security) that they lose their minds and channel Ayn Rand.
Is it that no one is on hand to renew or that people are on hand and choosing not to do their job?
Most likely the administrators are not essential and thus cannot renew them. If they are furloughed they are nnot allowed to even check email, use a gov't issued phone, or do any work at all.
That's what some at the TSA are doing. Calling in sick to make matters worse. http://fortune.com/2019/01/11/...
Given the choice of working for no pay or doing something else to try to pay rent and buy food, yea I can see calling in sick to work a side job.
Also keep in mind that many in the federal bureaucracy were already "resisting" the moment Trump came into office.
Bullshit. I know a lot of feds, and they just want to do their jobs and carry out whatever policies the administration puts in place, even if they disagree with them. In a number of cases, all the turmoil has resulted in them not even being told what they are to do, what programs to drop, where to refocus efforts, etc.
Whatever happened to "elections have consequences"?
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
What he says he would or wouldn't sign is 100% irrelevant, because 1) he's a liar so nothing he says is ever relevant and 2) the Senate hasn't voted on the budget yet, so there's no budget for the president to sign.
This problem is caused by senators who are too pussy to pass a bill that the president doesn't like. Think about that. This is the pussiest president we've had since .. Wilson!?!?! And the Republican dominated senate is too pussy to stand up to him. Those senators need to go. Start with voting McConnell out as majority leader.
You mean by doing the sensible thing, eg. Postponing the wall until there's money to pay for it?
(There'll be money, right? Trump's economic policies are working...?)
No sig today...
Obama deported the most illegals than any previous president. He did run and get elected as a Democrat right? Just cause fox and friends tells you something, that doesn't make it real. In fact, if it's coming from fox it will either be a lie, or coated in delicious lies. Just like the crazy neckbeard racist fuckwads don't represent conservatism as a whole, neither to the left wing nutjobs who seem to get endless airtime. I get that it's hard to understand these bubbles, but you really need to be aware that they exist on both sides. Left = all conservatives are racists Right = all democrats are socialsts The extremes are entirely made up bullshit. Sadly tho, the extreme on one side is certainly acting out with little to no repercussions.
What alternate facts?
I've literally heard recordings of Nancy, Chuck, Hillary and even Barrack himself claiming we needed this from only a few short years ago. What gives? Where they for it before they decided it was a bad idea it or some such nonsense?
I think one side IS inventing facts here, but in this case it's not who you seem to think.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Yes. The economy in the past w years has been fabulous compared to the previous 8 or almost any other time ever. Maybe any other time.
â5 billion is a rounding error for the Federal gvt. If your only argument against building a wall which the entire leadership of the DNC is on record as supporting pre-Trump is finding the money then there is no reason left not to build it.
Whatever happened to "elections have consequences"?
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
Sorry, the "pen and a phone" only work when Dems win the presidency.
Because reasons. Or something.
Yes, his economic policy is demonstrably working.
The leftist rag you pretend is a news source doesn't tell you how, but it's difficult to hide wages going up 4%, GDP growth nearing 3%, historic multi-generational low unemployment, 350,000 jobs added to the economy just in December...
The economy is literally twice as good under Trump and the Republicans than it was under Obama, and it's only improving from here, unless Democrats get their way and return to the crippling of America in service of a retarded White Guilt complex.
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
I don't think so. Every time Donald throws a tantrum, his base poll numbers go up, and congressional Republicans tremble in fear.
Likewise for Democrats. Nancy Pelosi was demonized by people like AOC last fall, yet now that she is standing up to Trump, her popularity with the progressive base has soared.
So far the shutdown has not affected me in the slightest. I wouldn't even know it was happening if I turned off the news.
"The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall he promised during his election campaign."
Is no less accurate as:
The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by the US Congress' refusal to pass any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall promised to voters.
When you have two stubborn groups refusing to compromise THEY ARE BOTH RESPONSIBLE for the consequences. Right now we are a global embarrassment mostly because of partisanship at a time when we have an escalating trade war and need unity. You might point a finger at who put us in that position but I'd point out that isn't productive, it doesn't much matter we have to deal with the situation we are in. The money being requested here is a drop in the bucket relative to the budget and international credibility this costs us, the Americans who want this pay more than enough in taxes to be entitled to it, so my 2 cents is do the stupid thing and move on.
I know that this being /. that people like to bash Trump at every opportunity (even when unwarranted), but isn't this problem one of crappy cert management?
Waiting until the very last minute before renewing a cert isn't a Best Practice. It's not like your wasting money by renewing a cert early.
ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
No, something SOME of the colonies were founded on. Almost everything they came here to be able to do is illegal now because they were psychotic religious cults too extreme at a time when Europe burned people at the stake over religion. Not exactly something we want to bring back.
There is no "two sides" to this. This problem falls squarely in the laps of the Republicans.
Trump had an entire year to get this pushed through when the Reps had all three branches of gov't. He didn't.
It only suddenly became a burning priority when the democrats took the house. There is only one side being childish right now, and that's been the case for a while now.
(Yes, the democrats have their issues, but those issues are not what caused this current mess.)
Trump was a democrat for most of his life but democrats have moved farther to the left and have become more radical over time.
A shutdown is the only leverage he has as president. Sure, he owns it but it's also congress because they control the purse. Democrats could easily end this just as much as Trump. Who is acting from a position of principle?
When two cars are playing chicken both are at fault when they crash not just the one who accelerated first.
What you just said:
"No, we aren't in the business of governing anymore."
The election is over. Now it's time to actually govern, which means working together to get the business of the federal government done.
If you don't want to govern, don't run for government office. If you just want to be a political hack, get a fucking AM radio talk show like all the other hacks.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The election of the President in the US has always been, for 200+ years, by electoral college
Which was necessary when calculating the national vote was not a practical thing to do in a short amount of time (days, even). We can tally the national vote in hours or less now. Results don't have to be transported on foot, by horse, or even by rail.
a massive Democrat campaign to overturn the results by trying to force the electors to not vote for him
Nice conspiracy you have, there. Care to provide support for it?
It was also NOT an "appalling low turnout" as it was statistically above the average turnout for all elections and had the largest RAW count of votes EVER.
That represents barely 60% of the population of people who are eligible to vote. Any other democracy would consider that an appalling failure - especially if you include the citizens who are uniquely ineligible in this country who would be able to vote in almost every other democracy.
Our country has the distinction of being one of the only "democracies" where politicians can pick their voters as much as the voters can pick their politicians.
But go ahead and keep slinging silly insults at me and attacking me instead of actually presenting facts. That seems to pass as dialogue for a certain portion of our country now.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Those were not about walls along the whole fucking shebang southern border, but rather small portion, and about sensible policies. You know, like the one republican hate more than dems : fining hugely and financially crushing people hiring illegals. But wait, can't do that, most of those are rich folk voting republican AND donating money. Yet this crack down on the people hiring illegals is what WORK.
A wall won't help without massive amount of support. The logistics alone are a nightmare, even if the wall only costs 5 billion dollars, you have the years of court battles fighting over eminent domain, as most borderlands are owned by private citizens. And again, without paying enough people to walk the wall, regularly, it is the equivalent of a screen door. Spend 5 billion on patrolling, it would actually help the situation. Walls are easily overcome. To your analogy, you want to put a million dollar door locked with a pad-lock next to an open window.
And they'll be plenty of opportunity to tie up the Great White Wall in court. The property owners, many are libretards, are willing to go to court to prevent the gummint from taking their land. And once some piece of the Great White Wall is built, thus allowing the Evangelicals to show the love of Jesus Christ to those heathen S. Americans, the next administration can take it back down as a stupid idea.
I read an interview with a Mexican awhile back. He didn't mind the wall reasoning that the U.S. would hire him and his buddies to help build it and then hire him and his buddies to tear it down.
If a Great White Emergency actually winds up paying for the Great White Wall, get ready for Governing by National Great White Emergency.
Could have something to do with the fact that the fence they are asking for is $361 PER INCH (generously, including the 150 miles of fence that is already built) and would only cover 11% of the border? Doesn't sound worth shutting down the government to me.
Which is the perfect comment because it has nothing to do with anything written in this thread prior to your non-sequitur.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Elections do have consequences, and the consequence of electing more Democrats to the house than Republicans is that Trump can't just demand what he likes and get it anymore.
The Democrats, and the majority of Americans, don't support the wall. How is it acting like Children for them to refuse to sign something they don't agree with? A parent isn't acting like a child if they refuse to give their toddler more dessert every time they start having a temper tantrum; and depressingly that's a close analogy to the current President and his typical behaviour.
Don't forget whipping people and putting them in the stocks for celebrating Christmas and hanging people for adultery. There are so many fun practices the early colonials had. I think it would be fair rather than to pick and choose which of religious practices of Europeans and Colonials we want to base our society on we just don't do that at all. How about we go with the spirit of the Christ figures statement when he said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto the lord that which is the lords." It seems Christ advocated for a separation of church and state. When he turned over the tables in the temple he also advocated for separation of church and commerce. It is odd how many who claim to be his followers center so much of their lives and beliefs around the opposite.
Which means we should be spending less and taxing more, not spending $5 billion on something that's not even effective at preventing what it's designed to prevent. Considering the majority of illegal immigration is a result of overstayed visas, the majority of the drug traffic happens at legal ports of entry, and the known or suspected terrorists that have attempted to enter the US have been caught at airports, it seems to me the return on investment on building a border wall is nowhere near the $5 billion he's asking for.
This is slashdot, so in programmer terms, this is premature optimization. Sure, there are thousands of people illegally crossing the border, but if you actually run a profiler you'll see that's not the even the hot path, so why are we proposing to spend so much of resources on that instead of elsewhere?
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
If that was ever funny, it stopped being so long ago.
You didn't answer the question - you know what Trump said about Mexico paying for the wall, but now Trump wants to use disaster funds meant to help Americans to pay for it. So.... how do you know when to pick and choose which of Trumps words to listen to? Does he publish some guidebook of promises he really meant?
One of the American representatives presiding over a district that would have a long stretch of wall (he's a Republican by the way) - recently gave his opinion that a wall would be useless, and the fence has had minimal success.
What he suggested, that makes a lot more sense, is a "smart wall" basically a series of sensors that can detect all sorts of activity and can allow personnel to go where they are needed, when they are needed. The advantage the fences have is that they sometimes slow people enough that border patrol might be more likely to accidentally stumble upon them.
If instead of building a physical wall, that wouldn't do much, we had a series of monitoring devices (that would work), it would cost many orders of magnitude less, and be way more functional.
A physical wall is little more than a vanity project.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
"He's" shutting down the government?
If the budget originated with Trump and the dems refused to sign because it included wall funding, would you then say Pelosi and Schumer are shutting down the government?
If not, your a partisan hack, only finding fault in the other side.
If so, you're just an idiot, basing your argument solely on who brings the budget to the table first.
He's executive NOT legislative. Technically, he's not supposed to even be meddling with this, that's not how the branches were originally intended (and all recent Presidents do this, not hitting only at Trump here). He's using his veto to prevent the legislative body doing what the legislative branch is there to do. I reiterate, it's not just him, they all do it. It's technically not his job, and wasn't what the position of President was originally intended to do.
I think it's about time we "redefine" the Presidency and reset it back to what it was supposed to be, not the ever more powerful position it has become over the many decades. No one man (or woman) should have so much power in a democracy, whether it's a wacko on the right, or a wacko on the left- or even someone from the middle.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves.
No, the Republicans did not try to get it passed by themselves.
The Democrats offered to vote for Trump's entire wall ($27b) in return for citizenship for the DACA kids. Republicans didn't even put that to a vote.
You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority
Or, since it's a spending bill, McConnell could have left the rules alone and passed it via reconciliation.
So the OP is right, the blame lies on both sides.
Only if you pretend time started about 3 months ago.
But Trump actually has a better hand. As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget. People's opinion of Trump is not going to change much over this, people that hate him will continue to do so. Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.
Polling doesn't bear out your prediction. Trump is getting the blame for the shutdown, people are responding that it's stupid to keep the shutdown going over the wall, and we're just starting to get to the point where it hurts the economy.
Would you be supportive of immigration controls that are effective, such as random ID checks and fines for employers of illegal immigrants?
I'm very much in favor of cripplingly high fines for employers of illegal immigrants. The way I see it, they are the cause of the biggest problems with said illegal immigration. If employers are hiring illegals instead of Americans, they're doing so because they can hire them for less than minimum wage while not paying for required benefits and employment taxes. This creates a second-class citizen situation: yes, we get cheaper products, but we do so because we're supporting a type of slave labor where illegal immigrants are forced to earn significantly below the cost of living for their region, which is why you see them having to group up several families in a one-family house. They don't complain about any abuse or safety violations at their work place because they fear deportation is found out.
Random ID checks, not so much. It's unconstitutional to perform a warrant-less search, and this is what it amounts to. If you have cause to perform a check on someone's resident / citizenship status, then you perform it, such as when hiring a new employee.
That said, I'm not a Democrat. So gauging my opinion on the above isn't a representative sample of that if it's what you're looking for.
Besides, even if it's not perfect, a one-time $5 billion is peanuts compared to the cost of hosting illegal immigrants. Even the liberal politifact says the costs is between $43 to $279 billion per year [politifact.com]. Over the lifetime of the wall, which is probably 20 years or more, that's 0.0008% to 0.005%. So the wall only has to be 0.005% effective to save us money, which it certainly will be. Heck, even Trump's rhetoric about building the wall is more than 0.005% effective.
The $5 billion isn't for a complete border wall. It's what he's asking to build a section of it right now. The estimates are at $25 billion. And it's not a sunk cost. It's not like you build the wall then don't do anything for 20 years. You have maintenance, you have patrolling. Smugglers build tunnels to get past existing patrols. People vandalize existing barriers to get through right now.
Most importantly, even if you're right, and it would save us money, as I've stated, it's not the hot path for illegal immigration. If you apply those funds elsewhere, you can save more money. Trump talked about the cost of drug trafficking, but the majority of that cost would go away for free if we ended the drug war and just legalized all drugs. That would do away with enforcement costs, leaving only the societal costs. Taxation of those sales can be used to offset those societal costs.
Basically, it's not just a question of whether there are positive gains from investing the money on a border wall. Even if we have the money, there's an opportunity cost to not investing it someplace else with a higher return on investment. You'd think a businessman like Trump would understand that concept.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
Right. Like funding the government while the debate about the wall continues. That would be the adult thing to do.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black