It's partisan ass-hattary like yours that got us in this mess. The republicans/democrats happily lead us down the path we chose. Keep voting the party line, it's doing us oh-so-much good isn't it?
I'd think that these guys are missing the point. Getting through a door is easy. Getting through a door without making it obvious that someone got through the door, is an entirely different matter. When I was a kid my parents had the all the whiskey in a locked cabinet. The doors were glass, and the lock was the flimsiest padlock you'd ever seen. I sure as hell could have gotten into it with a mallet... would that achieve my goals? No.
My guess is that no matter how hack-proof they make this lock, with a 6lb maul and a pry-bar I could get through that door in under 30 seconds. Which would leave just as glaring evidence as all of the methods suggested here would. A real hack would allow the attacker to pass through the door and leave the door and lock unharmed and no evidence (or at least hard to find evidence) of the attackers passage.
8/4/11 We've found evidence of something marginally important but are none-the-less very excited!!!! 8/10/11 We would like to address the reports from the scientific community at large that our findings are "nonsense"... 8/15/11 Ok, maybe we jumped the gun there a bit. We'll admit that perhaps we need more evidence than a single blurry image of a small squiggly looking thing to prove.... 9/1/11 Finding in August? What? We don't know what you're talking about. Now, about our amazing finding in the Arizona desert...
Slap in the face? Why is it that, whenever I read posts by Linux users bitching about some feature change in Linux, it always reads like an episodes of "The real housewives"?
Content delivery networks are irrelevant. 99% of the cost of a customers connection is the last mile, not the trunks leading from netflix itself. The content delivery system saves netflix money, but does nothing for the ISP (ok there's a tiny cost savings.) The last mile of that connection is still downloading the same content over and over again.
It's the government. They "encrypted" the drives. What do you think that means? Do you really think they did it properly? Or do you think they Bought some licenses form Symantec and clicked next next next? Randomly generate passwords? Seriously?
If they were properly secure in the first place, the would not need encryption. Encryption is for data that leaves your network. If physical media is leaving your network, you're doing it wrong.
I work for a phone company... and over the years I've made my way up the ladder to the point that now VPs will actually talk to me occasionally. Now, trust me... I'm a hardcore "information wants to be free / net neutrality / anti-software patent" type of person. Look at any of my previous posts on the subject to see this. But recently I got to sit in on a meeting with one of our top VPs who revealed what's "really" going on with this subject. While I still don't agree with bandwidth caps, throttling or traffic shaping, I think his point of view makes a little more sense to me now and is worthy of mention.
Their main concern is what they are calling "free riders." This isn't the customer, and they are in no way mad at the customer. They, in fact, wish this entire subject didn't exist. They aren't worrying about people downloading music, browsing or anything of that nature. Their first concern was You tube... and service like it. At first it was a bit annoying... you-tube setup a service where you could stream video to the customer and in exchange the customer would view adds. Youtube made ad revenue at almost no cost. The ISP saw this as an annoyance because to generate more ad revenue Youtube and service like it forced the user to re-download the same content every time they watched it... or at least made that the most convenient method for the user to use. Now the user is not only sucking up a lot more bandwidth, but they are very concerned about latency and download speeds even at peak hours. All of this to support Youtubes profit model that the ISP has no part of. Now this sort of service was annoying to them for a while, but later it got worse. Netflix put huge strains on their networks. Not only did it increase the amount of bandwidth people used, it also focused all their use to very specific time periods during the week. It was the ISP was a grocery store and some other vendor setup a cart in the middle of their store with "FREE CANDY FRIDAYS AT 8PM" The stores flooded with customers, the bathrooms are wrecked and there are lines of people at the front desk bitching that they cant get to the milk because of the swarm of children in the center isles. Despite all the media hype over Netflix, this wasn't really the last straw... The final nail in the coffin were services that most people don't know exist. In recent years many companies have started selling devices with network connections... in fact, most devices have them now. These connections offer users added services to their devices, like weather updates, firmware updates, games, trivia, TV guides, the works. But few users realize they are trading something for these services. As soon as these devices are hooked up there is almost a continuous stream of data going back to the vendors servers. They're monitoring their customers device usage and rarely even notifying. What's worse is these devices continue to communicate or at least attempt to communicate with their home service even if the vendor no longer cares to receive it. They have no vested intrest in the health of the network their equipment is hooked up to, so they use the cheapest most bandwidth intensive methods available. Why pay for software to compress your data when you don't have to pay for the bandwidth? The customer pays for that right?
These types of service were scary enough, but then Direct TV went over the top. When their receiver is hooked up to the customers internet connection and the customer trys to watch certain movies, the receiver starts downloading the movie from the home network FIRST to save the satellite provider bandwidth. So, what you have, in effect, is one ISP hijacking another ISP to deliver content. This threw the telecoms into a frenzy. All they could see was danger. If Direct TV or a local cable company had equipment hooked up to the telecoms network and the user had unlimited bandwidth and little incentive to pay much attention to how much their equipment was using, the competitor could quite easily cripple the telco.
I think the answer will never be in capping bandwidth. But I can understand their concerns. I think more transparency in how much data and what kind of data a device is using is a better option. But I have to say, I can now see what's got them so concerned.
If you've got the drive... you have unlimited attempts to crack it. Someone with a couple of video cards and a few days on their hands and their encryption is pointless.
Yes. Information should not be illegal. I hate Malware as much as the next guy, but there are hundreds of ways they could have passed laws that would lead them to be able to arrest this guy without having to making certain types of code illegal.
iOS encrypts the entire disc in an attempt to prevent people from using the system in ways other than what they want you to use it. It's not for the users security.
There isn't a reluctance. People have been demanding diesels for years.
Diesels have been limited by a combination of poorly constructed laws and lobbying by oil companies. Unlike Europe, the US measures a auto-manufacturer based on their "Fleet emissions" or the combination of emissions of all their cars combined. Trucks that haul cargo are measured differently so that's why you see big pickups that are diesels. At the same time, US diesel has for years contained high amounts of sulfur... something that is removed from European diesel by law. As a result the car manufactures strayed away from diesels in cars because the high sulfur content would damage modern equipment designed to lower diesel emissions and would in turn raise their fleet emissions and would prevent them from being able to "Spend" those emissions on much more profitable SUVs.
Oil companies lobbied heavily to keep this system in place... They certainly didn't want to spend extra money refining gas so car companies could build cars that used less of their product. But a few years ago, in a rare moment of sanity, our government finally required that sulfur be removed from diesel just as in Europe.
He opened a door, plugged a laptop into a switch and then covered it with a cardboard box. When they blocked his IP, he changed it. Everything he copied from the network is supposedly open domain, and despite the characterization that he downloaded "Massive" amounts of data, it appears that he downloaded a few gigs over a period of months. Moving the same amount of data over my 10yr old home network would take a couple of hours so it's clear he wasn't stressing MITs LAN.
Mark to market rules work, when banks have real assets and not complex derivatives designed to maximize profits. Had the banks been allowed to go under, these derivatives would no longer exist because no one would trust them as collateral on a loan. But since they are apparently backed by the federal reserve now (unlike the dollar) the banks will continue trading them as if they were immune to market fluctuations (unlike the dollar.)
What you effectively have is the Federal reserve protecting the non-monetary assets of large banks by devaluing the currency. The currency is where most of the poor and middle class have their investments. This is literally stealing from the poor to give to the rich. These banks were bankrupt. Period. Then the fed devalued every cent we own, and gave it to the banks to keep them afloat. Are we better off? Inflation is at 9% right now... think about that... in 5 years your paycheck will be cut in half. Oh wait, we're using the Feds new magic inflation that forever stays at 0%. I forgot.
No, the questions are: Were these banks bankrupt?: YES Did the federal government suspend federal law (mark to market rules) to allow them to keep operating despite being bankrupt?: YES Despite the bailout are Mark to Market rules still in suspension?: YES More importantly, are these banks still literally bankrupt? YES
These banks, the same banks that lead to the financial crisis, owe more money than they have assets to cover. To this very day, their primary source of collateral is still the very same mortgage backed derivatives that landed them in the mess in the first place.
The best thing that could happen in this entire mess would be to allow these banks to go under, like they should have in the first place and allow the market to correct naturally. How many empty, foreclosed homes are in your neighborhood? Why do you think the banks aren't selling them? Because they are not forced by federal law to mark them on their balance sheets at their true value. All the houses around you are selling for $200k but that foreclosed house is sitting on a banks balance sheet being valued at $300k so the bank can claim it's solvent.
I have a 3yr old. Every out door toy we get is covered in safety crap. It all comes off. These aren't power tools, the kids not going to lose an arm. At worst he'll get a nasty bruise or cut. Those are important. Kids need to learn about sharp things, hot things, and that jumping off every object they can climb might not be a good idea. If you shelter a child into adulthood, you will send them into the world as a very ill-equipped adult. Which safety net is going to catch them when you're in the nursing home?
I think that's kinda their point. Security is easy, very easy. The fact that none of these huge companies or government agencies can do rudimentary things to secure their sites should scare you. Hackers should keep plucking away at them until they either secure their sites or take them down entirely. Hacking should be legal, it's the only thing that tells us if a site is secure from the real bad guys... the ones that don't publish their results.
currently the "Scan" is to match you to a database of known criminals. But in order to scan you well enough to put you into the database they have to line you up against a wall and have you hold your eye open, etc... So you'll know when they are doing that at least. Of course, in 5 years time they'll be able to pull this info from your drivers license photo... but we all knew this Orwellian shits been coming for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
The best solution: don't mow it.
Why the hell do you have 6 acres of grass? Plant some trees for christs sake.
It's partisan ass-hattary like yours that got us in this mess. The republicans/democrats happily lead us down the path we chose. Keep voting the party line, it's doing us oh-so-much good isn't it?
I'd think that these guys are missing the point. Getting through a door is easy. Getting through a door without making it obvious that someone got through the door, is an entirely different matter. When I was a kid my parents had the all the whiskey in a locked cabinet. The doors were glass, and the lock was the flimsiest padlock you'd ever seen. I sure as hell could have gotten into it with a mallet... would that achieve my goals? No.
My guess is that no matter how hack-proof they make this lock, with a 6lb maul and a pry-bar I could get through that door in under 30 seconds. Which would leave just as glaring evidence as all of the methods suggested here would. A real hack would allow the attacker to pass through the door and leave the door and lock unharmed and no evidence (or at least hard to find evidence) of the attackers passage.
I'd argue that both are closed source and therefor, by definition, their security can not be determined.
8/4/11 We've found evidence of something marginally important but are none-the-less very excited!!!!
8/10/11 We would like to address the reports from the scientific community at large that our findings are "nonsense"...
8/15/11 Ok, maybe we jumped the gun there a bit. We'll admit that perhaps we need more evidence than a single blurry image of a small squiggly looking thing to prove....
9/1/11 Finding in August? What? We don't know what you're talking about. Now, about our amazing finding in the Arizona desert...
Slap in the face? Why is it that, whenever I read posts by Linux users bitching about some feature change in Linux, it always reads like an episodes of "The real housewives"?
Alternatively Facebook could go away...
It does the thing you made it to do in the amount of time you want it to do it.
Content delivery networks are irrelevant. 99% of the cost of a customers connection is the last mile, not the trunks leading from netflix itself. The content delivery system saves netflix money, but does nothing for the ISP (ok there's a tiny cost savings.) The last mile of that connection is still downloading the same content over and over again.
It's the government. They "encrypted" the drives. What do you think that means? Do you really think they did it properly? Or do you think they Bought some licenses form Symantec and clicked next next next? Randomly generate passwords? Seriously?
If they were properly secure in the first place, the would not need encryption. Encryption is for data that leaves your network. If physical media is leaving your network, you're doing it wrong.
I work for a phone company... and over the years I've made my way up the ladder to the point that now VPs will actually talk to me occasionally. Now, trust me... I'm a hardcore "information wants to be free / net neutrality / anti-software patent" type of person. Look at any of my previous posts on the subject to see this. But recently I got to sit in on a meeting with one of our top VPs who revealed what's "really" going on with this subject. While I still don't agree with bandwidth caps, throttling or traffic shaping, I think his point of view makes a little more sense to me now and is worthy of mention.
Their main concern is what they are calling "free riders." This isn't the customer, and they are in no way mad at the customer. They, in fact, wish this entire subject didn't exist. They aren't worrying about people downloading music, browsing or anything of that nature. Their first concern was You tube... and service like it. At first it was a bit annoying... you-tube setup a service where you could stream video to the customer and in exchange the customer would view adds. Youtube made ad revenue at almost no cost. The ISP saw this as an annoyance because to generate more ad revenue Youtube and service like it forced the user to re-download the same content every time they watched it... or at least made that the most convenient method for the user to use. Now the user is not only sucking up a lot more bandwidth, but they are very concerned about latency and download speeds even at peak hours. All of this to support Youtubes profit model that the ISP has no part of. Now this sort of service was annoying to them for a while, but later it got worse. Netflix put huge strains on their networks. Not only did it increase the amount of bandwidth people used, it also focused all their use to very specific time periods during the week. It was the ISP was a grocery store and some other vendor setup a cart in the middle of their store with "FREE CANDY FRIDAYS AT 8PM" The stores flooded with customers, the bathrooms are wrecked and there are lines of people at the front desk bitching that they cant get to the milk because of the swarm of children in the center isles. Despite all the media hype over Netflix, this wasn't really the last straw... The final nail in the coffin were services that most people don't know exist. In recent years many companies have started selling devices with network connections... in fact, most devices have them now. These connections offer users added services to their devices, like weather updates, firmware updates, games, trivia, TV guides, the works. But few users realize they are trading something for these services. As soon as these devices are hooked up there is almost a continuous stream of data going back to the vendors servers. They're monitoring their customers device usage and rarely even notifying. What's worse is these devices continue to communicate or at least attempt to communicate with their home service even if the vendor no longer cares to receive it. They have no vested intrest in the health of the network their equipment is hooked up to, so they use the cheapest most bandwidth intensive methods available. Why pay for software to compress your data when you don't have to pay for the bandwidth? The customer pays for that right?
These types of service were scary enough, but then Direct TV went over the top. When their receiver is hooked up to the customers internet connection and the customer trys to watch certain movies, the receiver starts downloading the movie from the home network FIRST to save the satellite provider bandwidth. So, what you have, in effect, is one ISP hijacking another ISP to deliver content. This threw the telecoms into a frenzy. All they could see was danger. If Direct TV or a local cable company had equipment hooked up to the telecoms network and the user had unlimited bandwidth and little incentive to pay much attention to how much their equipment was using, the competitor could quite easily cripple the telco.
I think the answer will never be in capping bandwidth. But I can understand their concerns. I think more transparency in how much data and what kind of data a device is using is a better option. But I have to say, I can now see what's got them so concerned.
If you've got the drive... you have unlimited attempts to crack it. Someone with a couple of video cards and a few days on their hands and their encryption is pointless.
Nice source... next we'll be quoting The News of the World. lol
But the constitution is a "living document" meant to "change with the times" and stuff... they tell us this all the time.
lol, that news source isn't biased at all...
Yes.
Information should not be illegal.
I hate Malware as much as the next guy, but there are hundreds of ways they could have passed laws that would lead them to be able to arrest this guy without having to making certain types of code illegal.
iOS encrypts the entire disc in an attempt to prevent people from using the system in ways other than what they want you to use it. It's not for the users security.
Because the cheapest cure for any disease is death.
There isn't a reluctance. People have been demanding diesels for years.
Diesels have been limited by a combination of poorly constructed laws and lobbying by oil companies. Unlike Europe, the US measures a auto-manufacturer based on their "Fleet emissions" or the combination of emissions of all their cars combined. Trucks that haul cargo are measured differently so that's why you see big pickups that are diesels. At the same time, US diesel has for years contained high amounts of sulfur... something that is removed from European diesel by law. As a result the car manufactures strayed away from diesels in cars because the high sulfur content would damage modern equipment designed to lower diesel emissions and would in turn raise their fleet emissions and would prevent them from being able to "Spend" those emissions on much more profitable SUVs.
Oil companies lobbied heavily to keep this system in place... They certainly didn't want to spend extra money refining gas so car companies could build cars that used less of their product. But a few years ago, in a rare moment of sanity, our government finally required that sulfur be removed from diesel just as in Europe.
He opened a door, plugged a laptop into a switch and then covered it with a cardboard box. When they blocked his IP, he changed it. Everything he copied from the network is supposedly open domain, and despite the characterization that he downloaded "Massive" amounts of data, it appears that he downloaded a few gigs over a period of months. Moving the same amount of data over my 10yr old home network would take a couple of hours so it's clear he wasn't stressing MITs LAN.
Mark to market rules work, when banks have real assets and not complex derivatives designed to maximize profits. Had the banks been allowed to go under, these derivatives would no longer exist because no one would trust them as collateral on a loan. But since they are apparently backed by the federal reserve now (unlike the dollar) the banks will continue trading them as if they were immune to market fluctuations (unlike the dollar.)
What you effectively have is the Federal reserve protecting the non-monetary assets of large banks by devaluing the currency. The currency is where most of the poor and middle class have their investments. This is literally stealing from the poor to give to the rich. These banks were bankrupt. Period. Then the fed devalued every cent we own, and gave it to the banks to keep them afloat. Are we better off? Inflation is at 9% right now... think about that... in 5 years your paycheck will be cut in half. Oh wait, we're using the Feds new magic inflation that forever stays at 0%. I forgot.
No, the questions are:
Were these banks bankrupt?: YES
Did the federal government suspend federal law (mark to market rules) to allow them to keep operating despite being bankrupt?: YES
Despite the bailout are Mark to Market rules still in suspension?: YES
More importantly, are these banks still literally bankrupt? YES
These banks, the same banks that lead to the financial crisis, owe more money than they have assets to cover. To this very day, their primary source of collateral is still the very same mortgage backed derivatives that landed them in the mess in the first place.
The best thing that could happen in this entire mess would be to allow these banks to go under, like they should have in the first place and allow the market to correct naturally. How many empty, foreclosed homes are in your neighborhood? Why do you think the banks aren't selling them? Because they are not forced by federal law to mark them on their balance sheets at their true value. All the houses around you are selling for $200k but that foreclosed house is sitting on a banks balance sheet being valued at $300k so the bank can claim it's solvent.
I have a 3yr old. Every out door toy we get is covered in safety crap. It all comes off. These aren't power tools, the kids not going to lose an arm. At worst he'll get a nasty bruise or cut. Those are important. Kids need to learn about sharp things, hot things, and that jumping off every object they can climb might not be a good idea. If you shelter a child into adulthood, you will send them into the world as a very ill-equipped adult. Which safety net is going to catch them when you're in the nursing home?
I think that's kinda their point.
Security is easy, very easy. The fact that none of these huge companies or government agencies can do rudimentary things to secure their sites should scare you. Hackers should keep plucking away at them until they either secure their sites or take them down entirely. Hacking should be legal, it's the only thing that tells us if a site is secure from the real bad guys... the ones that don't publish their results.
currently the "Scan" is to match you to a database of known criminals. But in order to scan you well enough to put you into the database they have to line you up against a wall and have you hold your eye open, etc... So you'll know when they are doing that at least. Of course, in 5 years time they'll be able to pull this info from your drivers license photo... but we all knew this Orwellian shits been coming for a long time.