If you can chmod or cp as root, you can do anything else as root seconds later.
We only give somebody root ability to do something if it's essential to their job, and a team reviews any new application of that to ensure it doesn't facilitate unwanted privilege escalation.
Their basic access to a system at all is reviewed quarterly by their manager, and if he doesn't take action to change the default answer to "yes, they still need this access", they get deleted.
Show me a publicly-traded company that's not acting like that, and I'll show you the next Enron.
How do you know they never complained before? No, you just want to point the blame for this to Clinton, and you chose this as your soapbox.
Actually, according to the Supreme Court opinions on this matter, you'd probably better lay the blame more on Thomas Jefferson than on any particular President. Congress can't limit Presidential powers enumerated in the Constitution, including the duty to act as commander in chief of the armed forces.
You glossed over the most important part of the section you quoted:
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
And you skipped subsection a, which refers you back to the definition of a US person vs. a foreign power, and specifically states that an agent of a foreign power living in the US is a foreign power.
Are you so blinded by your ideology that you do not see? This is the most frightening thing that our government has done in recent history.
They did it in 1978. Why are you suddenly frightened about it now? I knew about it in 1978; why didn't you? Why was it not frightening when done by Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., or Clinton? Answer; because the New York Times found a way to phrase it to make it scary, and you bought in.
If it's that easy to distinguish the "bad guys", it shouldn't be terribly difficult to obtain a warrant, no?
Maybe, but the 1978 FISA act authorizes warrantless wiretaps for up to a year, with notification requirements that are legally able to be met by typing up a memo, putting it in a sealed envelope, and sticking it in a safe in NSA headquarters marked "FISA documents".
Per 50 USC 1802, subsection a, you only have to bust that envelope out of seal and hand it over to the FISA judge if you file charges, or seek a warrant. You'd only seek a warrant in that case if either you wanted to surveil longer than a year, or you determined that the subject was in fact not an agent of a foreign power, but was in communication with foreign agents and might thereby be privy to useful intelligence.
As long as it's under a year and the AG thinks he's a foreign agent, it's legal, and has been for 27 years. Want to argue it's a bad law? Fine, argue that; but don't blame Bush for a law that was passed by a Democrat-controlled House, a Democrat-controlled Senate, and signed by a Democrat President; and don't believe the New York Times' disingenous play-acting of moral outrage. They've known about this law for longer than you've been alive.
(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that-- (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-- (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately. (2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General's certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title. (3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless-- (A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or (B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
They can wiretap someone without a warrant for up to a year, if the AG certifies he's an agent of a foreign power, and they can keep the notification to the FISA court under seal, I.E. no FISA judge sees it unless they later apply for a court order or attempt to use the information in a trial.
That's the law since 1978. It's in black and white. READ IT. Then, ask yourself why the New York Times is pretending they don't know this, when they've covered the story dozens of times; albeit never on the front page during the Clinton administration.
We recently learned that the NSA could be listening to any of our phone conversations. This is insignificant in comparison.
You recently learned that the government has been conducting warrantless wiretaps on people whom the Attorney General signs a sworn statement are agents of foreign powers, and that they've been doing it since 1978, and that it's been upheld by the Supreme Court and even the FISA court; either that, or you read a New York Times headline and thought you were reading the news. Unless you've done something to make the Attorney General willing to stick his neck out that far that you're a foreign agent, such as talk to Al Qaeda goons so often that you show up in their speed dial when we catch them, "our" is the wrong term.
Besides, this is insignificant without a comparison.
So either one or both agencies in question are simply incompetent, or lying to us. Which do you think is more plausible?
"C", either or both are hiring the lowest bidder to do programming on non-classified web systems, in accordance with federal budgetary laws.
We're all sitting here posting about this massive government conspiracy on a web site that uses persistent cookies. Maybe the freakin' NSA loaded up slashcode.
Please explain to me how accidentally distributing a cookie to a few users for a while constitutes disseminating personal information in violation of that law.
Are there people in South Korea who get so many indictments, it's worth their time to go apply for this, so that they can save time when all the indictments start rolling in?
I thought Ken Lay's name sounded Chinese, not Korean.
The President admitted this morning that has has authorized this 30 times; every last part of the NYT story has turned out to be true.
Except the part about it being unprecedented; Carter first authorized it in 1978. Every President since has done it. The New York Times knew ALL of this, the entire time. They didn't tell you, though. Wonder why?
We're talking about the company that briefly considered buying Claria/Gator. Of course they don't want malware restricted; they're thinking of getting into the market.
The problem with this is, he asked for abuses of the PATRIOT ACT.
The fact that Immigrations and Customs agents (not Homeland Security agents, Homeland Security doesn't have agents, they are basically a management umbrella for lots of previously-existing agencies) investigated a trademark complaint has nothing to do with the PATRIOT ACT.
PATRIOT could have been defeated in a massive landslide and this complaint would still have been acted on by the same agents in the same manner.
This is a good example, all right; a good example of how you left-wing bombthrowers blame every one of society's ills on the PATRIOT ACT.
Mostly because it's easier to log in via TS using a domain account, and it's simply easier to administrate the servers, it also prevents you from getting confused and working on the wrong customers servers over the Administrator's Tools (though that harder to do outside a managed hosting environment).
I don't buy the "prevents you from...working on the wrong...servers" argument. It's no harder to type the right name into a gui that connects to an administration daemon than it is to type the right name into a remote access daemon, and it's not necessary to have a graphics card installed in a box to have graphical login to it. (At least, with any modern OS except Windows).
As for it being "easier"; yes, it's true, you can trade off system stability and resources for the minor convenience of not having to have your administration GUI installed on the systems allowed to access your server administratively; but why would that matter, unless you're allowing ad-hoc administrative connections from randomly-chosen PCs? And why in the hell would anybody do THAT? If you're working for a publicly-traded company, it's probably not even legal to do that.
In the current versions, I don't believe so, but there are alot of complex tasks that an admin might do very rarely (ie not common enough to write a script), that just flow better using the GUI tools.
That explains why you need a GUI. It doesn't explain why you want it to run on the server.
Slashdot Mirror
I drop my cellphone about five times a week. I buy phones that can take it. Last thing I want is a freakin' head crash in my phone.
Darn that US! Before they got involved in the internet, it was great!
You talk of science and religion as if they were mutually-exclusive things. Most scientists would disagree with you.
If you can chmod or cp as root, you can do anything else as root seconds later.
We only give somebody root ability to do something if it's essential to their job, and a team reviews any new application of that to ensure it doesn't facilitate unwanted privilege escalation.
Their basic access to a system at all is reviewed quarterly by their manager, and if he doesn't take action to change the default answer to "yes, they still need this access", they get deleted.
Show me a publicly-traded company that's not acting like that, and I'll show you the next Enron.
How do you know they never complained before? No, you just want to point the blame for this to Clinton, and you chose this as your soapbox.
Actually, according to the Supreme Court opinions on this matter, you'd probably better lay the blame more on Thomas Jefferson than on any particular President. Congress can't limit Presidential powers enumerated in the Constitution, including the duty to act as commander in chief of the armed forces.
You glossed over the most important part of the section you quoted:
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
And you skipped subsection a, which refers you back to the definition of a US person vs. a foreign power, and specifically states that an agent of a foreign power living in the US is a foreign power.
Are you so blinded by your ideology that you do not see? This is the most frightening thing that our government has done in recent history.
They did it in 1978. Why are you suddenly frightened about it now? I knew about it in 1978; why didn't you? Why was it not frightening when done by Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., or Clinton? Answer; because the New York Times found a way to phrase it to make it scary, and you bought in.
If it's that easy to distinguish the "bad guys", it shouldn't be terribly difficult to obtain a warrant, no?
Maybe, but the 1978 FISA act authorizes warrantless wiretaps for up to a year, with notification requirements that are legally able to be met by typing up a memo, putting it in a sealed envelope, and sticking it in a safe in NSA headquarters marked "FISA documents".
Per 50 USC 1802, subsection a, you only have to bust that envelope out of seal and hand it over to the FISA judge if you file charges, or seek a warrant. You'd only seek a warrant in that case if either you wanted to surveil longer than a year, or you determined that the subject was in fact not an agent of a foreign power, but was in communication with foreign agents and might thereby be privy to useful intelligence.
As long as it's under a year and the AG thinks he's a foreign agent, it's legal, and has been for 27 years. Want to argue it's a bad law? Fine, argue that; but don't blame Bush for a law that was passed by a Democrat-controlled House, a Democrat-controlled Senate, and signed by a Democrat President; and don't believe the New York Times' disingenous play-acting of moral outrage. They've known about this law for longer than you've been alive.
Read the law yourself, hotshot.
Title 80, section 1802, subsection a:
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General's certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless--
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
They can wiretap someone without a warrant for up to a year, if the AG certifies he's an agent of a foreign power, and they can keep the notification to the FISA court under seal, I.E. no FISA judge sees it unless they later apply for a court order or attempt to use the information in a trial.
That's the law since 1978. It's in black and white. READ IT. Then, ask yourself why the New York Times is pretending they don't know this, when they've covered the story dozens of times; albeit never on the front page during the Clinton administration.
I'm alot more worried about suspects being shipped off to secret prisons and tortured than I am about cookies.
Then why'd you wait 10 years to start complaining about the program? Or were you unaware that Rendition was a Clinton initiative?
We recently learned that the NSA could be listening to any of our phone conversations. This is insignificant in comparison.
You recently learned that the government has been conducting warrantless wiretaps on people whom the Attorney General signs a sworn statement are agents of foreign powers, and that they've been doing it since 1978, and that it's been upheld by the Supreme Court and even the FISA court; either that, or you read a New York Times headline and thought you were reading the news. Unless you've done something to make the Attorney General willing to stick his neck out that far that you're a foreign agent, such as talk to Al Qaeda goons so often that you show up in their speed dial when we catch them, "our" is the wrong term.
Besides, this is insignificant without a comparison.
So either one or both agencies in question are simply incompetent, or lying to us. Which do you think is more plausible?
"C", either or both are hiring the lowest bidder to do programming on non-classified web systems, in accordance with federal budgetary laws.
We're all sitting here posting about this massive government conspiracy on a web site that uses persistent cookies. Maybe the freakin' NSA loaded up slashcode.
Please explain to me how accidentally distributing a cookie to a few users for a while constitutes disseminating personal information in violation of that law.
Are there people in South Korea who get so many indictments, it's worth their time to go apply for this, so that they can save time when all the indictments start rolling in?
I thought Ken Lay's name sounded Chinese, not Korean.
The President admitted this morning that has has authorized this 30 times; every last part of the NYT story has turned out to be true.
Except the part about it being unprecedented; Carter first authorized it in 1978. Every President since has done it. The New York Times knew ALL of this, the entire time. They didn't tell you, though. Wonder why?
I thought it was a hat?
We're talking about the company that briefly considered buying Claria/Gator. Of course they don't want malware restricted; they're thinking of getting into the market.
They've also begun marking valid, verifiable edits as "vandalism".
Case in point.
Want to disagree with an edit, guys, feel free; but if it's got references, it's not vandalism.
Ask Carter and Clinton, who both did the same thing.
I think the fear of many, however, is that the Patriot Act's message provides an excuse for such things, with very little oversight.
Well, at least you recognize it's based on fear, not facts.
The problem with this is, he asked for abuses of the PATRIOT ACT.
The fact that Immigrations and Customs agents (not Homeland Security agents, Homeland Security doesn't have agents, they are basically a management umbrella for lots of previously-existing agencies) investigated a trademark complaint has nothing to do with the PATRIOT ACT.
PATRIOT could have been defeated in a massive landslide and this complaint would still have been acted on by the same agents in the same manner.
This is a good example, all right; a good example of how you left-wing bombthrowers blame every one of society's ills on the PATRIOT ACT.
Minor convenience, what happens when the NIC goes bad, or the seriel port if you are using that?
Happens all the time on real OSes, too. What happens? You fix it. Without a GUI. It's easier. It's more stable. It works better.
Mostly because it's easier to log in via TS using a domain account, and it's simply easier to administrate the servers, it also prevents you from getting confused and working on the wrong customers servers over the Administrator's Tools (though that harder to do outside a managed hosting environment).
I don't buy the "prevents you from...working on the wrong...servers" argument. It's no harder to type the right name into a gui that connects to an administration daemon than it is to type the right name into a remote access daemon, and it's not necessary to have a graphics card installed in a box to have graphical login to it. (At least, with any modern OS except Windows).
As for it being "easier"; yes, it's true, you can trade off system stability and resources for the minor convenience of not having to have your administration GUI installed on the systems allowed to access your server administratively; but why would that matter, unless you're allowing ad-hoc administrative connections from randomly-chosen PCs? And why in the hell would anybody do THAT? If you're working for a publicly-traded company, it's probably not even legal to do that.
Wake me when he ties Clinton.
In the current versions, I don't believe so, but there are alot of complex tasks that an admin might do very rarely (ie not common enough to write a script), that just flow better using the GUI tools.
That explains why you need a GUI. It doesn't explain why you want it to run on the server.
Where are Dubya's defenders now?
Waiting for the retraction in the NYT in a couple of weeks.