It just seems bizarre to me how many people think it's normal to give out their password to family/friends/partners/whatever. I've never revealed a password to anyone in my life and never will, and my really important ones get changed regularly. Is that really so terribly unusual?
That would be nice, but this case wasn't about whether customs agents can force him to reveal his password. Apparently, his laptop was searched at the border, he entered his passphrase to allow the customs agents to search it *without telling them what his passphrase was*, and they found child porn on it, arrested him, and seized the laptop. Then, they shut it down and found that they couldn't get to the encrypted content without knowing the passphrase. Thus, this case was about whether defendants in criminal cases may be compelled to reveal encryption keys, not whether travellers crossing the border may be so compelled. As far as I know, customs agents can still do that.
Are you sure they actually can require you to open your locked house for search? They can search it, and they can break down the door if necessary, but can they force you to help them?
Well, one would rather expect them to be firmly secured to a server sufficiently heavy to hold them in place.
On the other hand, if they aren't they might do interesting things. Ever try holding even a 5,400 RPM drive in your hand while it's running? I've managed to flip one across the room, courtesy of a loose power cable and forgetting the precession and trying to rotate it too fast.
Well, no, there is no proof that there isn't some *other* way to break AES or whatever faster than brute force, but the original poster was proposing that a brute force attack on a 128-bit key was a physically reasonable thing to do.
Let me know when you finish building this network. It's going to be somewhat larger than the planet and will still take a few trillion years to do the job.
I usually try to avoid paying too much attention to morons.:)
Well, I suppose it could have been a valid question if one were really so naive about the nature of the hallucinogenic experience and didn't realize how indisputable and dramatic that sort of revelation can be. The rather hostile and inquisitorial tone of the comment in question, however, leaves me inclined to suspect it was motivated by a prohibitionist agenda rather than simple ignorance, and thus to conclude that it should not go unanswered.
You'll have to pardon me for not discussing the details of some highly personal experiences on Slashdot. In the particular instance I'm thinking of, about two years ago I pretty much got a personal guided tour of my own unconscious with respect to a certain issue that was causing me a great deal of pain at the time, and it allowed me to go ahead and make some really drastic changes over the next few months and pretty much completely remake my life. That isn't something that could have happened without a great deal more of pain and struggle otherwise, and probably without such successful results otherwise. Knowing all the details of it, the notion that it would have turned out anything like as well without suitable chemical assistance is just too silly to merit consideration.
A paucity of dopamine receptors is linked to an inability to avoid self-destructive behavior such as illicit drug use.
Yeah, because things can become self-destructive by legislative fiat. Considering that I owe a large portion of the person I am today to LSD and MDMA, I must say I am rather offended at the implication that I should regard this as destructive.
It's been a while since I actively used e-gold, but as I recall, unlike such brain-damaged systems as ACH, it was impossible for anyone but the account holder to initiate a transfer out. On the other hand, if you were foolish enough to hand out your account password to random people you were doing business with, well, hopefully you learned your lesson and won't do it again.
A systemic flaw in the e-gold design, present from the very beginning, made it vexingly difficult for e-gold to expel a User, in a truly effective way, for criminal abuse of the system. e-gold investigative staff might detect suspicious activity, block or freeze the offending account, and later discover the same perpetrator had created additional accounts.
One element was logic that allowed an e-gold account full privileges from the moment of creation and only revoked those privileges in the event of suspicion that the account holder was seeking to mask their identity or actually engage in illicit activity.
Um, systemic flaw? How about important feature? Really charming exercise in doublethink there. "We're crippling the anonymity features that made this product worth a damn in the first place, but we're going to *call* it correcting a 'flaw'".
This is a bloody show trial, that's what it is. It's not good enough to just prosecute their victims, the Almighty State has to ensure they repent publicly, presumably on pain of being fucked over a lot harder during sentencing. "A systemic flaw in the e-gold design...". We have always been at war with Eastasia.
You don't have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded is one oft-quoted example.
Oft and stupidly quoted, considering that it was originally used to justify upholding a prison sentence for distributing anti-draft pamphlets. It really isn't going to be helping your argument to quote sources like *that*.
Being gay, I'll bet you have spent much less time on average than most others, chasing women. I wonder what you did instead, HM?
What in the world makes you think he wouldn't be putting just as much effort into chasing men?
I'm a lesbian programmer, and I'd like to think I'm pretty good, but it's not because I can just meet women effortlessly (I'm actually really depressingly single...) or because I somehow don't want to meet someone as much and thus don't spend time trying to; I'm just as much of a socially inept nerd as most of the men here.
It reminds me of when I was a kid and we used to drive out to my grandparents house for Easter on Good Friday and between 12 and 3 - the hours we'd be traveling - my mother would insist that there be no music or discussion in the car, because, you know, Jesus suffered on the cross two thousand years ago during those hours (supposedly). And she's screw on this phony bullshit look of solemnity and I'd just want to ask my father, "Is she REALLY serious?"
Yes, really. He did. In *every time zone at once*. Do not question Jesus' mighty powers of parallel suffering.
Yeah, it wasn't like that at all. There used to be a few chupacabras, but I think the shoggoths ate them all, and those leprechauns never did any work. They'd just wander around all day, picking people's pockets and teleporting away.
It's a giant cube farm, and their code is like some sort of crawling horror of reanimated spaghetti which long ago swallowed up and devoured all documentation. And then there's the deployment system. As I mentioned in another comment on this article, it can't deal with dynamic libraries. When I left, it was a real and immediate issue how we were going to keep a certain product's dependencies small enough that it would be able to *link* in a 32-bit virtual address space. The linker was up to something like 2.8 GB of working set.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Stick to dating people who know how to use a packet sniffer. :)
It just seems bizarre to me how many people think it's normal to give out their password to family/friends/partners/whatever. I've never revealed a password to anyone in my life and never will, and my really important ones get changed regularly. Is that really so terribly unusual?
That would be nice, but this case wasn't about whether customs agents can force him to reveal his password. Apparently, his laptop was searched at the border, he entered his passphrase to allow the customs agents to search it *without telling them what his passphrase was*, and they found child porn on it, arrested him, and seized the laptop. Then, they shut it down and found that they couldn't get to the encrypted content without knowing the passphrase. Thus, this case was about whether defendants in criminal cases may be compelled to reveal encryption keys, not whether travellers crossing the border may be so compelled. As far as I know, customs agents can still do that.
I suppose so, but that wasn't really the issue at hand.
Are you sure they actually can require you to open your locked house for search? They can search it, and they can break down the door if necessary, but can they force you to help them?
You don't think ordering him to reveal his key under threat of being jailed for contempt of court counts as force?
Well, one would rather expect them to be firmly secured to a server sufficiently heavy to hold them in place.
On the other hand, if they aren't they might do interesting things. Ever try holding even a 5,400 RPM drive in your hand while it's running? I've managed to flip one across the room, courtesy of a loose power cable and forgetting the precession and trying to rotate it too fast.
What part of the First Amendment don't you understand?
I'm guessing that would be "all of it".
Well, no, there is no proof that there isn't some *other* way to break AES or whatever faster than brute force, but the original poster was proposing that a brute force attack on a 128-bit key was a physically reasonable thing to do.
Let me know when you finish building this network. It's going to be somewhat larger than the planet and will still take a few trillion years to do the job.
I usually try to avoid paying too much attention to morons. :)
Well, I suppose it could have been a valid question if one were really so naive about the nature of the hallucinogenic experience and didn't realize how indisputable and dramatic that sort of revelation can be. The rather hostile and inquisitorial tone of the comment in question, however, leaves me inclined to suspect it was motivated by a prohibitionist agenda rather than simple ignorance, and thus to conclude that it should not go unanswered.
You'll have to pardon me for not discussing the details of some highly personal experiences on Slashdot. In the particular instance I'm thinking of, about two years ago I pretty much got a personal guided tour of my own unconscious with respect to a certain issue that was causing me a great deal of pain at the time, and it allowed me to go ahead and make some really drastic changes over the next few months and pretty much completely remake my life. That isn't something that could have happened without a great deal more of pain and struggle otherwise, and probably without such successful results otherwise. Knowing all the details of it, the notion that it would have turned out anything like as well without suitable chemical assistance is just too silly to merit consideration.
A paucity of dopamine receptors is linked to an inability to avoid self-destructive behavior such as illicit drug use.
Yeah, because things can become self-destructive by legislative fiat. Considering that I owe a large portion of the person I am today to LSD and MDMA, I must say I am rather offended at the implication that I should regard this as destructive.
Why, yes, the Almighty State is hazardous to your health. What a surprise.
If the cost of half a bag of fries is anything other than utterly trivial for you, you really shouldn't be eating out at all. Sheesh.
It's been a while since I actively used e-gold, but as I recall, unlike such brain-damaged systems as ACH, it was impossible for anyone but the account holder to initiate a transfer out. On the other hand, if you were foolish enough to hand out your account password to random people you were doing business with, well, hopefully you learned your lesson and won't do it again.
From the article:
A systemic flaw in the e-gold design, present from the very beginning, made it vexingly difficult for e-gold to expel a User, in a truly effective way, for criminal abuse of the system. e-gold investigative staff might detect suspicious activity, block or freeze the offending account, and later discover the same perpetrator had created additional accounts.
One element was logic that allowed an e-gold account full privileges from the moment of creation and only revoked those privileges in the event of suspicion that the account holder was seeking to mask their identity or actually engage in illicit activity.
Um, systemic flaw? How about important feature? Really charming exercise in doublethink there. "We're crippling the anonymity features that made this product worth a damn in the first place, but we're going to *call* it correcting a 'flaw'".
This is a bloody show trial, that's what it is. It's not good enough to just prosecute their victims, the Almighty State has to ensure they repent publicly, presumably on pain of being fucked over a lot harder during sentencing. "A systemic flaw in the e-gold design...". We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Whereas us lesbians can secure our own DNS just fine, but would still prefer to have some nice girl do it for us. :)
Before you quite reach the loony extremes of disinfecting your light switches, may I recommend one of the many delicious drugs available for OCD?
You don't have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded is one oft-quoted example.
Oft and stupidly quoted, considering that it was originally used to justify upholding a prison sentence for distributing anti-draft pamphlets. It really isn't going to be helping your argument to quote sources like *that*.
Being gay, I'll bet you have spent much less time on average than most others, chasing women. I wonder what you did instead, HM?
What in the world makes you think he wouldn't be putting just as much effort into chasing men?
I'm a lesbian programmer, and I'd like to think I'm pretty good, but it's not because I can just meet women effortlessly (I'm actually really depressingly single...) or because I somehow don't want to meet someone as much and thus don't spend time trying to; I'm just as much of a socially inept nerd as most of the men here.
It reminds me of when I was a kid and we used to drive out to my grandparents house for Easter on Good Friday and between 12 and 3 - the hours we'd be traveling - my mother would insist that there be no music or discussion in the car, because, you know, Jesus suffered on the cross two thousand years ago during those hours (supposedly). And she's screw on this phony bullshit look of solemnity and I'd just want to ask my father, "Is she REALLY serious?"
Yes, really. He did. In *every time zone at once*. Do not question Jesus' mighty powers of parallel suffering.
Yeah, it wasn't like that at all. There used to be a few chupacabras, but I think the shoggoths ate them all, and those leprechauns never did any work. They'd just wander around all day, picking people's pockets and teleporting away.
It's a giant cube farm, and their code is like some sort of crawling horror of reanimated spaghetti which long ago swallowed up and devoured all documentation. And then there's the deployment system. As I mentioned in another comment on this article, it can't deal with dynamic libraries. When I left, it was a real and immediate issue how we were going to keep a certain product's dependencies small enough that it would be able to *link* in a 32-bit virtual address space. The linker was up to something like 2.8 GB of working set.
Um, I used to work there. Believe it or not, there are some people here with real jobs and stuff.