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.
This isn't a government shutdown. This is a minority party that gained a slight foothold in one part of the government and immediately used it to shut down the government and is now trying to blame everyone but themselves for the outcome.
The Senate and the President of the United States are ready to reopen the government immediately. It's solely one small part of the government that's refusing to open things. So call it what it is: the Democrat Shutdown.
Democrats took control of the house: Jan 3
Shutdown started: Dec 22
Trump, McConnell, and Senate Republicans own this. Everyone, including you, know this.
If they set up Let's Encrypt properly, they can have automatic renewing of their certificates.
Only 6% of the Israeli "wall" is actually a wall. 94% is just lots (really lots!) of barbed wire fencing in multiple layers - with a dead zone between where people crossing can be observed, and with a trench to slow them down long enough to be observed, and smooth sand/gravel so that successful crossing attempts can at least be detected in hindsight. The tall concrete walls you see in the news are only in places where there isn't enough width to have a fence + dead zone, or where there's an issue with snipers - e.g. housing right up close to the border from where people can shoot or be shot at. Back in the US, most illegal migrants from the south arrive legally at border points then overstay. Really, a wall will have next to no effect on the number of illegal migrants entering the US. As for drugs - if drug lords are resourceful enough to build mini-submarines for example, then a wall isn't going to stop them.
Oh, you mean that core election promise that Mexico would pay for the wall with a one-off payment. Looks like the Dems (and the GOP before Jan) are just holding him to that promise.
1) Securing the perimeter of a McMansion's yard is EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM as walling off 2,000 miles worth of border.
2) Do you really think $5 billion worth of wall will stop that last Mexican boogeyman? Or give us anything close to $5 billion worth of border security? Do you really think the Lord of Grift will do anything other than pocket most of the money?
3) You want to stop those Mexican boogeymen? Slap a good stiff fine on those who hire them. You could even fund a few hundred feet of wall with the revenue...oh, wait, I just remembered. Taking money from rich people is socialism.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
He literally spelled it out on his website the HOW. I cannot believe that so many fucking people are going 1984 on this point. One of those points mentioned in that document, FROM HIS FUCKING WEBSITE, is them expecting Mexico to cut a fucking check for the wall, full stop.
US government is dead. Netcraft confirms it.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
If that was ever funny, it stopped being so long ago.
The only thing that's funny is the revisionist history I've seen people like you engaging in, given that he did say that Mexico would pay for the wall, he did so numerous times, and he even explicitly said that Mexico would pay for it in a "one-time payment". To his credit, he was walking the rhetoric back even before his inauguration, and I think it's a good thing when people (politicians or otherwise) change their minds after realizing that they were wrong, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the things they said. As such, what I'm not okay with is a politician attempting to gaslight an entire nation by lying about what was said when it's inconvenient for him to be held accountable for those words later. There's no denying—at least among honest people—that he made the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall and that they'd do so via a lump payment, rather than the tariffs, taxes, or whatever other reimbursements he's now trying to claim he meant all along.
As an aside, I don't have any "favored politicians". The party I'm registered with stopped representing my interests a long time ago, and none of the others do any better by me.
The House passed the EXACT SAME BILL to reopen the government that the GOP-controlled Senate passed a few weeks ago, but now McConnell say that is a non-starter for GOP Senators.
The GOP owns this. Full stop.
Oh, and while we're at it, if the damn wall was so important how come they didn't get it funded during the 2 years that the GOP controlled both houses?
The fence was a failure. People simply went around it or went over it. It was also breached 9,287 times in 5 years, resulting in repair costs.
People would climb it, tunnel under it, throw drugs over it... It even started a drug war that resulted in 2000 deaths.
It also had some pretty bad effects on the environment where it was built.
Okay, you say, Trump's wall will be better. Higher, stronger, cover the entire border. Here's a video of a couple of guys climbing the existing very similar existing wall, in broad daylight, with drugs strapped to their backs, using only ropes. Takes them less than a minute.
The problem needs to be tackled at source, not at the border.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Why did Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell want to prevent him from getting that key campaign promise through?
Couple things. Paul Ryan delivered on the $5.7 but the Senate didn't have enough votes (10 democrats).
10 Democrats what? The Republicans had a clear Senate majority, as well as the tie-breaking vote. The bill could have been passed without a single Democrat voting for it, they could even have survived four defections... but they had a lot more than that, didn't they?
By waiting till after the election (especially after losing the House) McConnell, Trump, and Ryan have made the division in government clear.
You should re-read your own post. They haven't made the division clear, they're trying to pull a fast one and make it look like it's GOP vs Dems, when really it's Trump vs an alliance of part of the GOP & the Dems. The narrative that "Trump fights his own party" is, in fact, the truth with respect to wall funding (as well as some other areas). Also, "never Trump" is a mischaracterization of Flake and others who supported plenty of Trump's initiatives. Those GOP members aren't "never Trump", they just aren't "always Trump", and in Trump's narrative you're either with him or against him; there's no room for nuanced disagreement.
FWIW, I'm a Republican-leaning libertarian who rarely agrees with Trump, but believes that even when he's right he's still bad for the country.
the democrats are not acting based on principle but rather "Never Trump".
Actually, I think it's both. Even without the Trump hatred I still don't think the Democrats would want to fund this boondoggle of a wall. It goes against their principles, even though they rarely see a government program they don't love. I could be wrong, of course; heaven knows both parties have funded untold boondoggles.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Republicans didn't support the wall either. Why do you think Trump waited until Democrats had control of the House to push hard on this? With a Republican majority house and senate it would have just been an embarrassment to him. With a Democrat house, he can use it to score a few points with his base, but I'm not sure his judgement on when to call it quits is going to help him in the long run, as the tougher things get for government employees, the more support he's going to lose.
$18.5 billion in Medicaid for illegal immigrants. That's just healthcare - and it's nearly 4X this ask for the wall. ILLEGAL immigrants, not legal.
Medicaid is not what the figure you quoted represents. I read the Forbes article from which your source drew its data and the majority of the cited costs are not Medicaid. You're misrepresenting the data. The article includes all kinds of indirect costs like forgone tax revenue and tax advantaged bond financing from non-profit hospitals, tax breaks for insurance provided as employee benefits or unpaid emergency room visits causing higher costs for all patients. It even includes $1.5 billion in charity care voluntarily given by physicians as a "cost". It doesn't show any evidence that illegal immigrants are using that healthcare, it just takes the total costs from a number of areas then assumes illegals use the same amount as legal residents and ascribes that cost to them. Even the author recognizes the shakiness of his figures:
Whatever the case, your assertion of "18.5 billion in Medicaid" is wrong and not even supported by your own source.
Enigma
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.
That may be the case in some places, but not all. I'm in the upper-midwest, farm country. The rural towns around here are dying. Fast. There's plenty of farmland, but there isn't a labor force to sustain the farms.
For the locals, "home" is a shitty little town in the middle of nowhere, with no way to ever pay for more than a run-down old house or a double-wide trailer. There's no real advancement, no way to strike it rich. So there's no reason to be invested in working and living there, other than because it's been home to the family for a few generations. There's a lot of migration out of the rural towns, and they are dying.
This has driven up the going rate for farm labor, which is now pushing $12/hr, sometimes going as high as $15/hr. The demand for labor and decent pay has brought in an influx of Mexican workers, and definitely not all of it them are legal. However, with this mix of legal and illegal, it seems the pay is largely the same across the board. Why? If you are absolutely desperate for workers, the last thing you want to do is piss them off, because they don't live here, and will happily drive 50 miles down the road to work for someone who's not a racist asshole. After all, they already have traveled a thousand plus miles for work.
But what's really, really surprised me is the attitude of the farmers hiring these Mexicans. A couple were interviewed in the papers in the last year or two and both said that they'd rather hire Mexicans than the locals. Why? Because they're hard working, they stay out of trouble, and they don't leave for greener pastures as soon as they see a potentially better option. If you treat them right, they settle down and get shit done. Why? They're sending most of their money back to their family, which is using it to build a better life. When they have their dream home, the kids are well educated, they've got some new cars, and a nice nest egg tucked away, they're planning to go back and live the good life. And the harder they work now, the faster they get there.
Immigration, legal and illegal, is benefiting both our countries in this regard. It's keeping these farms alive, that's making more money for the local area, the state, and potentially the US if any of those agriculture products get exported, and it's improving the lives of the families back home in Mexico. Yes, we'd rather have americans doing these jobs, but when they're not, even for what's regionally OK pay, what's the alternative? Active farms make money, fallow lands don't. And no other industry is going to replace tens of thousands of acres of farmland out in the middle of nowhere with minimal infrastructure around for miles.
Sure, you can take the free market approach of "if they're not profitable, let them die", but that's the same as saying, "I hate Mexicans so much I want to see both our countries poorer." We'd all like to see a functional immigration system, but I don't see that happening in the near future. If we go nuclear on illegal immigration, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. We'd like to think we're not, but that's just wishful thinking. What's more likely than a political solution is that automation will steadily reduce these jobs, until they're more trouble to find than they're worth.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor