I think you're half right. Security is just an added expense. OTOH as someone else pointed out it's also good PR to say you've found x bug and have fixed it. And bad PR when it leaks that the NSA found all kinds of ways to exploit your software and you didn't. So there are costs on both sides. In the end the main reason I have no confidence in MS is that they are, after all, a very large American corporation, and the NSA and all the rest of the cop agencies exist to protect them. So why wouldn't they cooperate?
Anybody else wonder if Microsoft is cooperating with the NSA? Seems like there are a lot of security issues and I wonder why MS hasn't seemed to be able to find them and why the NSA has.
Our coop president called Verizon many many many times to tell them we wanted FiOS. He offered to organize a meeting of nearby buildings. This is a relatively wealthy neighborhood. Eventually Verizon stopped answering his calls. Verizon took huge subsidies for FiOS and used them to build out their cellular network. The fact that the city still hasn't made a serious effort to enforce the contract shows that the city and Verizon are on the same side.
I've never understood the argument for changing your password monthly. Let's assume your password is attacked on its first day. Surely it doesn't take a month to hack it. What are the odds that it will be attacked on its thirtieth day? And the new one is just as likely as the old one to be attacked, so what's the point?
I've been in Cuba dozens of times in the last fifteen years and I have never been unable to access a single web site. This is going back to when I used a dialup account from the apartment where I was living. Same was true when I used the U. of Havana computers, same is true using the government-sponsored wifi, same is true using hotel wifi. So let's just drop the whole "Cuban government internet censorship" meme, shall we? Since it's never existed.
"Crime" is not a fact. First of all, what is "crime"? Are you talking about convictions? That, obviously, is socially determined--who gets prosecuted for what, the extent to which the cops and the prosecutors lie, quality of the defense attorney, etc. So, no, "race" is not correlated with crime. It's correlated with who gets locked up, which has little if anything to do with crime.
In what must be the biggest surprise story of the week, Apple, a big corporation, acts like a big corporation.
Jokes aside, the government is *Apple's* government, not yours. Like it's Exxon's or Monsanto's, or Koch whatever. It's called capitalism, a lot of you say you like it, so don't get all outraged when capital rules. And you don't.
Governments can't be trusted to enforce laws vigorously that are politically sensitive, as prosecutions of DDOS cases might be (who to prosecute? are you going to charge another government? etc). So go with big big civil penalties. There'll always be someone who will sue anybody--like the 9/11 victims families in the US trying to sue Saudi Arabia against the wishes of the US govt.
Here's yet another chance to grow more food in a world where billions of people don't have enough, but I am 100 percent certain the anti-GMO pro-hunger gang will oppose it, as they have with so many other opportunities.
Note that first of all this is not a "news" story. It's a bunch of charges made by one side in a deep political debate. There's no attempt at substantiation, and not even the pretense of the courtesy of allowing the other side to comment. Second, that so many fierce "independent thinkers" at Slashdot have just accepted the charges and assumed they must be true. Because after all everyone knows Cuba is bad, right? And how do we know? Because "a lot of people" say so. And you make fun of Trump supporters.
If it's important enough to the cops to find you, they will. "Off the grid" or on. Google Unibomber. Chances are you're not doing anything that interests them anyway. I'm not defending government snooping--just stating what I believe the facts are right now.
It doesn't matter what this law will say. What matters--and this is of course true of every law--is how it will be enforced. They don't care about MP3s or even cryptography as such. What they care about is being able to decrypt the communications they want to decrypt. It's much easier from their point of view to write an overly broad law even if it appears stupid because it's only the enforcement that counts, and they control the enforcement.
The petitioners oppose what they call Trump's "brand of hate"--perhaps there's a brand of hate they don't oppose? Hate has gotten a bad name, from liberals. Why is hate bad? I hate a lot of things. I hate racism, I hate police brutality, I hate the waste of lives in the society we live in. Am I a bad person for "hating"?
This is how the entire aerospace/aviation industry has functioned from the beginning. Government pays for R&D and private industry capitalizes on it. Boeing's 747 came from work done to develop the C-5. If you're shocked by this story then you haven't been paying attention for the last fifty years.
First of all, what government does not do all this? Second, this is the result of thinking it's OK to not let people you disagree with have the same right to speak as you do. How is this different from what Anonymous does? Or in the US, the people who think it's a good idea, because they don't like Donald Trump, to keep him from speaking?
I'm sure if you're against Trump this seems like a good idea. But what will you say when a group of pro-Trump hackers dismantles the campaign you support? If you don't like what Trump has to say, answer it. Trying to silence him will a. fail and b. only prove to his supporters that he's right.
The real basis for this proposed law has nothing to do with encryption or drug trafficking or child molesting. It has everything to do with anti-americanism. He even says as much - it's about keeping US companies from having any influence in Europe.
Why do you think it's worth mentioning that Trump doesn't understand macro-economics? First of all, he probably does, just fine. Second of all, and more important, he and his supporters don't give a s*it about traditional economic "theory" or political theory or any of that other bull. They're mad and they want someone to fix everything.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're half right. Security is just an added expense. OTOH as someone else pointed out it's also good PR to say you've found x bug and have fixed it. And bad PR when it leaks that the NSA found all kinds of ways to exploit your software and you didn't. So there are costs on both sides. In the end the main reason I have no confidence in MS is that they are, after all, a very large American corporation, and the NSA and all the rest of the cop agencies exist to protect them. So why wouldn't they cooperate?
Anybody else wonder if Microsoft is cooperating with the NSA? Seems like there are a lot of security issues and I wonder why MS hasn't seemed to be able to find them and why the NSA has.
I have one. It's insanely warm--the warmest coat I've ever owned. And I paid a lot less for it.
Our coop president called Verizon many many many times to tell them we wanted FiOS. He offered to organize a meeting of nearby buildings. This is a relatively wealthy neighborhood. Eventually Verizon stopped answering his calls. Verizon took huge subsidies for FiOS and used them to build out their cellular network. The fact that the city still hasn't made a serious effort to enforce the contract shows that the city and Verizon are on the same side.
I've never understood the argument for changing your password monthly. Let's assume your password is attacked on its first day. Surely it doesn't take a month to hack it. What are the odds that it will be attacked on its thirtieth day? And the new one is just as likely as the old one to be attacked, so what's the point?
I've been in Cuba dozens of times in the last fifteen years and I have never been unable to access a single web site. This is going back to when I used a dialup account from the apartment where I was living. Same was true when I used the U. of Havana computers, same is true using the government-sponsored wifi, same is true using hotel wifi. So let's just drop the whole "Cuban government internet censorship" meme, shall we? Since it's never existed.
This "operation" was supposedly aimed at low-ranking Israeli soldiers. Can someone explain to me how Hamas got their phone numbers?
It's a crock. The only "irregularity" is that their side lost. http://www.vox.com/2016/11/22/...
"Crime" is not a fact. First of all, what is "crime"? Are you talking about convictions? That, obviously, is socially determined--who gets prosecuted for what, the extent to which the cops and the prosecutors lie, quality of the defense attorney, etc. So, no, "race" is not correlated with crime. It's correlated with who gets locked up, which has little if anything to do with crime.
In what must be the biggest surprise story of the week, Apple, a big corporation, acts like a big corporation. Jokes aside, the government is *Apple's* government, not yours. Like it's Exxon's or Monsanto's, or Koch whatever. It's called capitalism, a lot of you say you like it, so don't get all outraged when capital rules. And you don't.
Governments can't be trusted to enforce laws vigorously that are politically sensitive, as prosecutions of DDOS cases might be (who to prosecute? are you going to charge another government? etc). So go with big big civil penalties. There'll always be someone who will sue anybody--like the 9/11 victims families in the US trying to sue Saudi Arabia against the wishes of the US govt.
Three guys in Kansas were just arrested before they could blow up a lot of people, including Muslim children. Are they savages too?
You obviously have not been paying attention to Sharpton for the last 15 years or so. Time to find another imaginary enemy.
Here's yet another chance to grow more food in a world where billions of people don't have enough, but I am 100 percent certain the anti-GMO pro-hunger gang will oppose it, as they have with so many other opportunities.
Note that first of all this is not a "news" story. It's a bunch of charges made by one side in a deep political debate. There's no attempt at substantiation, and not even the pretense of the courtesy of allowing the other side to comment. Second, that so many fierce "independent thinkers" at Slashdot have just accepted the charges and assumed they must be true. Because after all everyone knows Cuba is bad, right? And how do we know? Because "a lot of people" say so. And you make fun of Trump supporters.
If it's important enough to the cops to find you, they will. "Off the grid" or on. Google Unibomber. Chances are you're not doing anything that interests them anyway. I'm not defending government snooping--just stating what I believe the facts are right now.
"Beg the question" doesn't mean "beg for the question." It means to avoid answering the question.
It doesn't matter what this law will say. What matters--and this is of course true of every law--is how it will be enforced. They don't care about MP3s or even cryptography as such. What they care about is being able to decrypt the communications they want to decrypt. It's much easier from their point of view to write an overly broad law even if it appears stupid because it's only the enforcement that counts, and they control the enforcement.
The petitioners oppose what they call Trump's "brand of hate"--perhaps there's a brand of hate they don't oppose? Hate has gotten a bad name, from liberals. Why is hate bad? I hate a lot of things. I hate racism, I hate police brutality, I hate the waste of lives in the society we live in. Am I a bad person for "hating"?
This is how the entire aerospace/aviation industry has functioned from the beginning. Government pays for R&D and private industry capitalizes on it. Boeing's 747 came from work done to develop the C-5. If you're shocked by this story then you haven't been paying attention for the last fifty years.
First of all, what government does not do all this? Second, this is the result of thinking it's OK to not let people you disagree with have the same right to speak as you do. How is this different from what Anonymous does? Or in the US, the people who think it's a good idea, because they don't like Donald Trump, to keep him from speaking?
Where were all the conservatives who complain about government regulation strangling businesses when government regulations strangled Lavabit?
I'm sure if you're against Trump this seems like a good idea. But what will you say when a group of pro-Trump hackers dismantles the campaign you support? If you don't like what Trump has to say, answer it. Trying to silence him will a. fail and b. only prove to his supporters that he's right.
The real basis for this proposed law has nothing to do with encryption or drug trafficking or child molesting. It has everything to do with anti-americanism. He even says as much - it's about keeping US companies from having any influence in Europe.
Why do you think it's worth mentioning that Trump doesn't understand macro-economics? First of all, he probably does, just fine. Second of all, and more important, he and his supporters don't give a s*it about traditional economic "theory" or political theory or any of that other bull. They're mad and they want someone to fix everything.