This might actually be a nice way to completely invalidate this crap, if you don't mind a bumpy ride for a while. Essentially they're acting as the police, jury, and executioner if they decide, without any evidence or verification that what you've said is true. This could put them in a very embarassing legal jam.
It doesn't surprise me that some people are totally lost on the meaning in this animated short, nor does it surprise me that people would label something they don't understand as inferior in some way. It would be a refreshing change of pace to see someone provide some intelligent discourse as to what was so lame about it, other than, "the plot sucked," "it was too short," blah blah blah...
Point is, outlawing "hacking" tools like this is simply a grab for the spotlight.
I say it's a sign of imminent brain death, since it belies any sign of rational thought. There seem to be a lot of simlarities between an internet full of zombied PCs, and various governments full of zombied "representatives," each controlled by a few simple commands. The only real difference is that in the latter case, the effectiveness of these commands seems to vary with the amount of money that accompanies them. At least that appears to be true in the US.
I might point out that the threat of inadmissibility is only important where one is trying to prosecute someone for criminal activity. If you have other motives, like blackmail or extortion (which could easily happen), admissibility isn't even a blip on the radar.
Anything open to public participation is subject to potential abuse. If these people are real, they are in dire need of a history lesson or two. If they are PR shills for Wush & Co. (which I suspect some are), they are, in the truest sense of the word, idiots.
I take everything anyone (elected) says with a grain of salt at this point, because elections are looming just a few short months away. Because, as others have suggested, long since become a very real problem, any attempt to solve it (at least by the methods outlined in the article), are mere sprints along the PR highway. To go the distance will require some fundamental changes, few of which may be amenable to entrenched interests (Big Business, Inc.)
In addition you your the insanity you've pointed out, we have banks that rely on verbal passwords. Every time you call and want to do something, they'll ask you for the password. If you don't use it very often, typically you'll forget it. If you choose one you know you'll remember, it's probably one that will be easy for someone else to guess, if they know anything about you. If you choose a difficult one, you may resort to writing it down, and putting *it* somewhere you'll remember.
They ask for other information too (like SSN), but if you don't know that password, they won't do anything. That's ok, but the flip side is that if you do know the password (but shouldn't), it seems like an easy-in.
I wouldn't be surprised if I made someone's terrorist watch list, because I called the other day without a clue as to what my password was, AND I couldn't remember the *exact* amount of the last deposit which was made over a year ago. What a charade.
Keyword analysis is (AFAIK) still a black art but identifying the recipients through voicewaves is old hat. So when Mr Bush says "we want to know who's talking to terrorists"
I'd posit that there's some confusion between WushSpeak and reality. He means exactly what Rumsfeld meant when he made the comment shortly after 9/11, that "if we have sacrificed our freedom, the terrorists have won," or somesuch. In other words, it doesn't mean squat. Just words emanating from a talking head. I believe that what they want to know is who's talking to anyone they want to know about it, terrorist or not. They play that word "terrorist" like a modern-day "get out of jail free" card that entitles them to do whatever the hell they please. I can't wait to see the horribly sugar-coated spin that will come this November, and again in 2008.
That all depends...many organizations have positions that are characterized by "all of the responsibility but none of the authority". This means that as a security professional, you may be able to recommend certain practices, but unless one has the authority to see to it that these recommendations are implemented, there really isn't a whole lot more that can be done.
What exactly do you think commercial efforts do? The exact same thing, except the criteria are different. Rather than "do what they want" they "do they think everyone else wants (or should want)." If your particular need doesn't happen to fall into that category, you're SOL. At least with open source, you can hire someone to implement a feature if it's important enough to your workflow. I know, it costs extra money, but at least the choice is there!
I'd almost be willing to say that moving to an OS solution would require LESS training than upgrading to Vista. Even so, I don't think there is all that much "training" required to move to open-source alternatives - in some cases, maybe, but moving from Word to OpenOffice Writer, for most, will be a non-event.
I find most of what you've said very insightful- however, there is one point I'd like address:
They aren't going to win the casual computer user by creating a community.
They may not win the casual user, but I'd argue that having a strong community can certainly do a lot for retention. People need answers to problems they're experiencing, and with Linux, the community is the place to get them. If you have a strong community, people will feel good about their decision to convert, and perhaps convince others to consider it.
They in for a big disappointment - I know I'll find ads no less detestable after a cup of coffee than I do any other time of the day.
I don't really mind that businesses have products and services to sell, what I mind is that their efforts to sell them are so invasive, and so pervasive, that it is a complete turnoff.
Yes, but it must be noted that prior to the PATRIOT act, the NSL was applied under very limited circumstances. Thanks to this wonderful new law, it's practically open season. This means that there could easily be a lot of ordinary legal situations that may now be "secretized" by virtue of the fact that a national security letter was involved. It's one of many newfound "tools" just begging for abuse.
Google is still young - let another 10 years pass, and see what happens. People get stale - it's just part of the human condition. The only way I see to gaurd against this is to ensure that there is a controlled degree of turnover in staff (especially managmement) so that nobody gets too comfortable.
Slashdot Mirror
This might actually be a nice way to completely invalidate this crap, if you don't mind a bumpy ride for a while. Essentially they're acting as the police, jury, and executioner if they decide, without any evidence or verification that what you've said is true. This could put them in a very embarassing legal jam.
It doesn't surprise me that some people are totally lost on the meaning in this animated short, nor does it surprise me that people would label something they don't understand as inferior in some way. It would be a refreshing change of pace to see someone provide some intelligent discourse as to what was so lame about it, other than, "the plot sucked," "it was too short," blah blah blah...
Just curious...what do you think the story IS, actually?
Sometimes less is more....a LOT more.
I think you've hit on something... a new distro....Asshat Linux.
Point is, outlawing "hacking" tools like this is simply a grab for the spotlight.
I say it's a sign of imminent brain death, since it belies any sign of rational thought. There seem to be a lot of simlarities between an internet full of zombied PCs, and various governments full of zombied "representatives," each controlled by a few simple commands. The only real difference is that in the latter case, the effectiveness of these commands seems to vary with the amount of money that accompanies them. At least that appears to be true in the US.
I might point out that the threat of inadmissibility is only important where one is trying to prosecute someone for criminal activity. If you have other motives, like blackmail or extortion (which could easily happen), admissibility isn't even a blip on the radar.
I don't care if they were running tcpdump...it doesn't make it any less troublesome.
Anything open to public participation is subject to potential abuse. If these people are real, they are in dire need of a history lesson or two. If they are PR shills for Wush & Co. (which I suspect some are), they are, in the truest sense of the word, idiots.
Nice link - that artistic style is somewhat unique and very appealing (at least in my opinion).
There's one problem...there don't appear to be many patriots around these days. Plenty of nationalists, yes...but patriots? I'm not so sure.
I take everything anyone (elected) says with a grain of salt at this point, because elections are looming just a few short months away. Because, as others have suggested, long since become a very real problem, any attempt to solve it (at least by the methods outlined in the article), are mere sprints along the PR highway. To go the distance will require some fundamental changes, few of which may be amenable to entrenched interests (Big Business, Inc.)
You'll have six human-sized flotation devices to choose from.
In addition you your the insanity you've pointed out, we have banks that rely on verbal passwords. Every time you call and want to do something, they'll ask you for the password. If you don't use it very often, typically you'll forget it. If you choose one you know you'll remember, it's probably one that will be easy for someone else to guess, if they know anything about you. If you choose a difficult one, you may resort to writing it down, and putting *it* somewhere you'll remember.
They ask for other information too (like SSN), but if you don't know that password, they won't do anything. That's ok, but the flip side is that if you do know the password (but shouldn't), it seems like an easy-in.
I wouldn't be surprised if I made someone's terrorist watch list, because I called the other day without a clue as to what my password was, AND I couldn't remember the *exact* amount of the last deposit which was made over a year ago. What a charade.
Keyword analysis is (AFAIK) still a black art but identifying the recipients through voicewaves is old hat. So when Mr Bush says "we want to know who's talking to terrorists"
I'd posit that there's some confusion between WushSpeak and reality. He means exactly what Rumsfeld meant when he made the comment shortly after 9/11, that "if we have sacrificed our freedom, the terrorists have won," or somesuch. In other words, it doesn't mean squat. Just words emanating from a talking head. I believe that what they want to know is who's talking to anyone they want to know about it, terrorist or not. They play that word "terrorist" like a modern-day "get out of jail free" card that entitles them to do whatever the hell they please. I can't wait to see the horribly sugar-coated spin that will come this November, and again in 2008.
That all depends...many organizations have positions that are characterized by "all of the responsibility but none of the authority". This means that as a security professional, you may be able to recommend certain practices, but unless one has the authority to see to it that these recommendations are implemented, there really isn't a whole lot more that can be done.
What exactly do you think commercial efforts do? The exact same thing, except the criteria are different. Rather than "do what they want" they "do they think everyone else wants (or should want)." If your particular need doesn't happen to fall into that category, you're SOL. At least with open source, you can hire someone to implement a feature if it's important enough to your workflow. I know, it costs extra money, but at least the choice is there!
Well, what are they, exactly?
Know what's funny about this?
I'd almost be willing to say that moving to an OS solution would require LESS training than upgrading to Vista. Even so, I don't think there is all that much "training" required to move to open-source alternatives - in some cases, maybe, but moving from Word to OpenOffice Writer, for most, will be a non-event.
I find most of what you've said very insightful- however, there is one point I'd like address:
They aren't going to win the casual computer user by creating a community.
They may not win the casual user, but I'd argue that having a strong community can certainly do a lot for retention. People need answers to problems they're experiencing, and with Linux, the community is the place to get them. If you have a strong community, people will feel good about their decision to convert, and perhaps convince others to consider it.
They in for a big disappointment - I know I'll find ads no less detestable after a cup of coffee than I do any other time of the day.
I don't really mind that businesses have products and services to sell, what I mind is that their efforts to sell them are so invasive, and so pervasive, that it is a complete turnoff.
Yes, but it must be noted that prior to the PATRIOT act, the NSL was applied under very limited circumstances. Thanks to this wonderful new law, it's practically open season. This means that there could easily be a lot of ordinary legal situations that may now be "secretized" by virtue of the fact that a national security letter was involved. It's one of many newfound "tools" just begging for abuse.
You make an interesting point. Keeping people motivated with an innovative frame of mind might very well be one way to address the "staleness" issue.
Google is still young - let another 10 years pass, and see what happens. People get stale - it's just part of the human condition. The only way I see to gaurd against this is to ensure that there is a controlled degree of turnover in staff (especially managmement) so that nobody gets too comfortable.
touche : )