That is what I said in my second paragraph. That isn't what the post I replied to seemed to be saying. I read his post as saying his browser encrypts messages with his own private key, for the recipient to decrypt with his public key, hence my concern. After all, maybe not all recipients have a key pair, but could still decrypt messages signed with the sender's private key.
And, no, I don't use encryption, PKI or otherwise, so I don't know how an in-browser implementation would manages these things. The last time I cared about encryption that much, 20 years ago, the system discussed talked about encrypting the message with the recipient's public key, only after encrypting that block of data with your own private key. Then the recipient decrypts the outer layer with their private key, ensuring only they can, and then decrypts the inner block with your own public key, ensuring them that it came from you.
Quite honestly, I don't know if that step using your own key pair is what is called 'digital signing', since 'digital signing' does not imply encryption, only verification of sender. That could be done as a hash against your key, with no encryption actually happening. And if that is how verification works, you message is sent in clear text to recipients who do not have a key pair.
But as I said, I don't use an encryption system, my work doesn't need that level of security (but I might change my opinion of that now (thanks NSA)), so I am just saying what I see as issues.
The problem I see is that you can send all the encrypted emails you want, but the recipients have to decrypt them. So they need your public key. Everyone needs your public key, and everyone will have your public key. Don't you think the NSA has already started compiling public keys as well?
What you need to do is have a system that has others' public keys stored, and applies the proper one for whatever email address a message is meant for. Then your message is as safe as the recipient's private key is. Note, this is what the submitter is asking about.
I have that with MetroPCS. I pay $50 per month for unlimited everything. If I pay onliine, that's my bill. If I pay at the local store, there's a $3 fee.
I can see that there are less expensive plans now from the other alternative providers, but I've been with Metro since 2006. Back then they were the only one with unlimited minutes for a reasonable price. So I'll stick with them instead of jumping to a cheaper provider.
GW Bush signed the patriot act.....not obama.....the patriot act created these programs.....
Who cares? After 4 1/2 years, you can firmly say that Obama has taken ownership of that problem, especially after the "compromise" reauthorization in 2011. Obama ran on a campaign that in part was supposed to be about putting an end to war on terror abuses. Instead, the only "wrongdoers" Obama has pursued with any vigor in connection with war on terror crimes and state surveillance are government whistleblowers.
I voted twice for Obama. And now, I just feel like I've been voting against "the wrong lizard" the whole time (because I don't believe for a second that Romney or McCain would have been better on 4th Amendment rights).
You are failing to realize that the mass media would have outed everything they could, if only a Republican was in office. Don't you remember the original 'leaked stories' of government surveillance? The ones that actually involved spying on foreigners, even if they were talking to Americans. They were front page stories in the New York Times, back when Bush was in office. Now that Obama is there, Snowden had to go to a foreign paper to get his story out.
I'm getting incredibly disillusioned with American democracy, and it's the fault of the people for spending far more time getting worked up on partisan circus issues than real, substantial matters of policy.
That's why many of us who agree with that sentiment voted third party this last time. It's the only option left, unless...
I'd say we need a revolution,
Whether we need one or not, I believe one is coming. Within the next decade, at that.
but I'm even more terrified of the most eager revolutionaries than I am of the lizards in charge.
So find less eager revolutionaries, and form your own group of concerned citizens, who plan to survive the coming revolution. Oops, you just became one of the groups you are terrified of.
Honestly, that's all it would take. But once you are at the point, you'll see most of the other groups are more like you than you currently appreciate. (There are the groups of racist thugs, but they are not the majority of the groups.) They don't want to overthrow the government, they want to return the government to what it is supposed to be. But they realize the government won't allow this without a fight.
I just don't know what to do anymore.
Get a handgun, go to a gun range to learn to fire it, talk to people who you think are too scary. Let things evolve from there.
Are you fucking kidding? Wikipedia? The "source" that any jackass can edit and put in anything he wants?
I just edited the Wikipedia article on 'Wikipedia', and it states that only authorized experts are allowed to edit Wikipedia articles. So you are now wrong, because Wikipedia says so.
I'm glad it is appreciated. It started out as a comparison of the sizes only, since I was always wondering how big the countries were in relation to a state, or which state was closest in size to whatever country, for example Germany is closest to Montana in size. Notice what the ratio of their population density is though.
I agree with that. I actually made an Excel spreadsheet that compares the population, size, and population density of the European countries and the 50 states. If you want to download it, here is the link thru ADrive.com.
It has each comparison on a separate sheet, with the states to the left and the countries to the right of a central column listing the value in descending order. The other two values are then to the right for quick cross reference. I even showed Russia two ways - just the European section, and the entire country spanning across north Asia to the Pacific.
It helps to show that many of the large European countries have a similar population density of our smallest and most dense states. If you then realize most of the countries also only have a few land types (coastal plains, rolling hills, medium size forests, part of a mountain range), it becomes more apparent that what works in one European country would not scale to cover the entire US.
The insurance mandate is the band-aid. The expansion of Medicaid (which is part of the plan) to cover all the population is the achievable route to a universal health care system.
Which is the real intent in the first place.
Note that since Obamacare was announced, the inflation rate of health care services has dropped to record lows.
How much of that is explained by the economy not having recovered after more than 6 years? If no one has extra money for doctor visits, the price isn't going to go up much.
Why is it that I'm seeing half the stories on Slashdot, after they spent a day or two on Drudge Report? Especially ones that are only slightly "News for nerds" material?
Well, from what I just read, it shows the press council got three complaints in 2011, about three articles during June and July. The complaint was that the articles were inaccurate and misleading.
The press council agreed the articles were inaccurate and misleading, although the articles were full of verifiable facts. So now, stating facts in a news article is misleading. Using the latest published numbers is misleading. Quoting a customer, who when asked agrees with the tone of the usage of his words, is misleading.
OK, I see what you meant. I forgot the 'overrated' tag bypasses meta-moderation. I thought you meant the abuse happened during meta-moderation, which didn't make sense to me.
And then there's people who have a life, and don't waste their time with something as meaningless as sitting around and speculating about something imaginary.
I don't watch a story. I AM a story. A much longer and much better one. (And you can be too! [That's my point])
The irony is that you are saying such a statement to a computer group that you have no objective way of proving to be real.
Slashdot Mirror
That is what I said in my second paragraph. That isn't what the post I replied to seemed to be saying. I read his post as saying his browser encrypts messages with his own private key, for the recipient to decrypt with his public key, hence my concern. After all, maybe not all recipients have a key pair, but could still decrypt messages signed with the sender's private key.
And, no, I don't use encryption, PKI or otherwise, so I don't know how an in-browser implementation would manages these things. The last time I cared about encryption that much, 20 years ago, the system discussed talked about encrypting the message with the recipient's public key, only after encrypting that block of data with your own private key. Then the recipient decrypts the outer layer with their private key, ensuring only they can, and then decrypts the inner block with your own public key, ensuring them that it came from you.
Quite honestly, I don't know if that step using your own key pair is what is called 'digital signing', since 'digital signing' does not imply encryption, only verification of sender. That could be done as a hash against your key, with no encryption actually happening. And if that is how verification works, you message is sent in clear text to recipients who do not have a key pair.
But as I said, I don't use an encryption system, my work doesn't need that level of security (but I might change my opinion of that now (thanks NSA)), so I am just saying what I see as issues.
The problem I see is that you can send all the encrypted emails you want, but the recipients have to decrypt them. So they need your public key. Everyone needs your public key, and everyone will have your public key. Don't you think the NSA has already started compiling public keys as well?
What you need to do is have a system that has others' public keys stored, and applies the proper one for whatever email address a message is meant for. Then your message is as safe as the recipient's private key is. Note, this is what the submitter is asking about.
I have that with MetroPCS. I pay $50 per month for unlimited everything. If I pay onliine, that's my bill. If I pay at the local store, there's a $3 fee.
I can see that there are less expensive plans now from the other alternative providers, but I've been with Metro since 2006. Back then they were the only one with unlimited minutes for a reasonable price. So I'll stick with them instead of jumping to a cheaper provider.
So, harrar, you've had 2 full days to figure out how to respond, and still you are stumped.
Thanks for playing. Now go back to your bong. It doesn't matter anymore for you, since you can't think beyond the end of your fingertips anyway.
GW Bush signed the patriot act.....not obama.....the patriot act created these programs.....
Who cares? After 4 1/2 years, you can firmly say that Obama has taken ownership of that problem, especially after the "compromise" reauthorization in 2011. Obama ran on a campaign that in part was supposed to be about putting an end to war on terror abuses. Instead, the only "wrongdoers" Obama has pursued with any vigor in connection with war on terror crimes and state surveillance are government whistleblowers.
I voted twice for Obama. And now, I just feel like I've been voting against "the wrong lizard" the whole time (because I don't believe for a second that Romney or McCain would have been better on 4th Amendment rights).
You are failing to realize that the mass media would have outed everything they could, if only a Republican was in office. Don't you remember the original 'leaked stories' of government surveillance? The ones that actually involved spying on foreigners, even if they were talking to Americans. They were front page stories in the New York Times, back when Bush was in office. Now that Obama is there, Snowden had to go to a foreign paper to get his story out.
I'm getting incredibly disillusioned with American democracy, and it's the fault of the people for spending far more time getting worked up on partisan circus issues than real, substantial matters of policy.
That's why many of us who agree with that sentiment voted third party this last time. It's the only option left, unless...
I'd say we need a revolution,
Whether we need one or not, I believe one is coming. Within the next decade, at that.
but I'm even more terrified of the most eager revolutionaries than I am of the lizards in charge.
So find less eager revolutionaries, and form your own group of concerned citizens, who plan to survive the coming revolution. Oops, you just became one of the groups you are terrified of.
Honestly, that's all it would take. But once you are at the point, you'll see most of the other groups are more like you than you currently appreciate. (There are the groups of racist thugs, but they are not the majority of the groups.) They don't want to overthrow the government, they want to return the government to what it is supposed to be. But they realize the government won't allow this without a fight.
I just don't know what to do anymore.
Get a handgun, go to a gun range to learn to fire it, talk to people who you think are too scary. Let things evolve from there.
I lol'ed.
Actually, it isn't necessarily illegal. It is definitely unconstitutional, which trumps legality in this country. Or should trump it, anyway.
Yes, the natural place for that carbon is buried underground. That's where it has always been, since the earth formed five billions years ago.
Who buys a convertible in BC? lol
Future thinkers, apparently. lol
wikipedia disagrees with you.
Are you fucking kidding? Wikipedia? The "source" that any jackass can edit and put in anything he wants?
I just edited the Wikipedia article on 'Wikipedia', and it states that only authorized experts are allowed to edit Wikipedia articles. So you are now wrong, because Wikipedia says so.
I will have less money on hand than if I didn't spend the $30 I used to have.
What is your definition of "poorer", if not "having less money than before"?
Then I am a french model.
Do you happen to be dating a ditzy blonde woman who doesn't believe insurance companies have apps for cell phones?
I'm glad it is appreciated. It started out as a comparison of the sizes only, since I was always wondering how big the countries were in relation to a state, or which state was closest in size to whatever country, for example Germany is closest to Montana in size. Notice what the ratio of their population density is though.
I agree with that. I actually made an Excel spreadsheet that compares the population, size, and population density of the European countries and the 50 states. If you want to download it, here is the link thru ADrive.com.
http://www.adrive.com/public/QRaYTq.html
It has each comparison on a separate sheet, with the states to the left and the countries to the right of a central column listing the value in descending order. The other two values are then to the right for quick cross reference. I even showed Russia two ways - just the European section, and the entire country spanning across north Asia to the Pacific.
It helps to show that many of the large European countries have a similar population density of our smallest and most dense states. If you then realize most of the countries also only have a few land types (coastal plains, rolling hills, medium size forests, part of a mountain range), it becomes more apparent that what works in one European country would not scale to cover the entire US.
Obama bent over backwards to keep you from realizing that the intent is universal health care, which Americans do not want. He was very successful.
The insurance mandate is the band-aid. The expansion of Medicaid (which is part of the plan) to cover all the population is the achievable route to a universal health care system.
Which is the real intent in the first place.
Note that since Obamacare was announced, the inflation rate of health care services has dropped to record lows.
How much of that is explained by the economy not having recovered after more than 6 years? If no one has extra money for doctor visits, the price isn't going to go up much.
How else will the IRS verify we are legally enrolled in a plan, and don't have to pay the fine/tax/fine/tax?
Why is it that I'm seeing half the stories on Slashdot, after they spent a day or two on Drudge Report? Especially ones that are only slightly "News for nerds" material?
Are that many /.ers closet Drudge readers?
Hey, come on someone with mod points. This post is funny. Mod it up, up, up.
Well, from what I just read, it shows the press council got three complaints in 2011, about three articles during June and July. The complaint was that the articles were inaccurate and misleading.
The press council agreed the articles were inaccurate and misleading, although the articles were full of verifiable facts. So now, stating facts in a news article is misleading. Using the latest published numbers is misleading. Quoting a customer, who when asked agrees with the tone of the usage of his words, is misleading.
He doesn't care. He just had to throw that name into the picture because he had no legitimate response that wasn't leftist hatred for Fox News.
OK, I see what you meant. I forgot the 'overrated' tag bypasses meta-moderation. I thought you meant the abuse happened during meta-moderation, which didn't make sense to me.
And then there's people who have a life, and don't waste their time with something as meaningless as sitting around and speculating about something imaginary.
I don't watch a story. I AM a story. A much longer and much better one. (And you can be too! [That's my point])
The irony is that you are saying such a statement to a computer group that you have no objective way of proving to be real.
Thank you for clearing that up.
I don't agree with you, at all, but I'm not a South Park fan. So the whole devotion thing is lost on me.
But as always, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I adore the way people abuse meta-moderation by marking several unmoderated posts in a row as Overrated when they don't like someone.
And you know this because...?