This goes hand-in-hand with TFA's conclusion. Start watching a series on Prime, continue watching it pirated. Then, next time, eliminate Prime from the loop since it added so little. Amazon Prime and Netflix will never have as wide a catalog as TPB.
I really doubt that there's a huge contingent of people who are only on Twitter because Trump is.
I'd be curious. I'm in that category. I installed Twitter solely to follow Trump - I follow 2 accounts, both of them him. I don't understand why Americans wouldn't follow him - He makes more announcements over Twitter than in press conferences. I check Twitter every morning just to see what new excitement has been hacked out.
...since, as I don't believe this happened, you can't classify information that doesn't exist...
The information does exist, it's just that all indications are that it's inaccurate. I can't classify false information, but he could. Classification level and accuracy don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. For a little over a decade, I worked closely with a lot of DoE classified information. I've never seen classified information that I knew to be false, but that doesn't mean it can't exist. During the Manhattan project, I'd wager that there was a lot of classified inaccurate information as we were learning. Fortunately, most everything that's classified has been fact-checked more rigorously than DJT's tweets.
What can a tweet start in 2017?
That thought terrifies me and that's the sole reason I installed Twitter and check it every morning.
I hadn't heard Trump say it. I was referencing Nixon. Except that in this case it seems to largely apply. I may have gone too far saying, "whatever he damn well pleases," but it's true with regard to disclosing classified information. Somebody mentioned that he could be caught out for "self-promotion," but he's immune from most of the conflict-of-interest stuff. Somebody also mentioned calling him out for "calls to violence." I'd be curious to see how that one played out. The president is beholden to some of our laws, but there is very little limit to what he can legally tweet.
Even if something becomes unclassified because the president tweeted it doesn't mean it becomes TRUE because the president tweeted it.
No argument there. The nice thing about unclassifying the information is that the statement, "I can neither confirm nor deny," can be reduced to simply, "I can deny."
As President every word you say, every statement you make, has the weight of the US government and military behind it. You damn well can't just say whatever you want, because at best it can cost people money.
Yes, he really can say whatever he damn well pleases. It's terrifying the amount of weight behind it. What he says may be ill-thought out and terrible; it may have globe-shattering implications; he could condemn countless lives with a flick of his thumb; but it's not illegal and there's nothing stopping him. Not if the president does it.
The president enjoys authority over classified information, of course, but at a minimum it would be highly irregular to disclose an intelligence wiretap via Twitter.
A General Hayden explained on the Late Show the other night that the president can tweet whatever he damned well pleases - Since he's the ultimate classification authority, information just BECOMES unclassified BY being tweeted. Of course this is irregular - We've never had a president who used Twitter (or any social media) the way DJT does. This is just an irregular presidency all together.
That's sure the way it seems. This is an obvious case of pot/kettle. I'm sure our response would be the same if the tables were turned. We all act shocked when the other guy is exposed for the same activities that intelligence agencies all over the world surely take part in. The Chinese stand out because the economic espionage is so prevalent.
Perhaps China should be *more* worried about the people who hacked the CIA, rather than the CIA?
Maybe, but I think it's far more likely to be a leak than a hack.
If there are all these security holes in Chinese made kit, then the Russians will be exploiting them just as much as the CIA.
Well, the Russians now know about these vulnerabilities as well as the ones they've discovered on their own - Just like every other country with a cyber-warfare division. You have to assume that there was some overlap - The Russians were likely already exploiting some of these holes. The big difference now is that we have a large number of cards on the table. Oops.
What does Greyball do, exactly and how does it thwart oversight?
From the linked summary:
This program denies ride requests to users who are violating our terms of service -- whether that's people aiming to physically harm drivers, competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who collude with officials on secret 'stings' meant to entrap drivers.
Still don't know what a "Ghost rider" is or why the CIA leaks link is relevant, but that's how they're skirting regulators.
When I referred to back-end security, I meant in the sense of delays. I realize that's not what I said. Can't watch the videos 'cuz I'm at work, but I'll take it on faith that they explain why a vacuum tube with a bullet loaded with passengers would be THAT much more hazardous than a "normal" train wreck. That wasn't sarcasm. It seems to me that security would be largely pointless unless we secured the whole line to some degree - It would be easy (easier?) to attack the tube/car without even visiting the station. I apologize if I'm missing points covered in the videos.
The prob is the front and back security. Which would have to be applied to hyperloop too.
I'm confused. "Back security"? Even in aircraft, we only check on the front side - Do we need to re-check people after they've reached their destination? Also, why would this need more security than buses or trains? It's not like one's going to get hijacked and rammed into a building.
...do you leave all the computers in the government and major industries that drive our nation like power plants and airlines vulnerable...
Yes, you leave them vulnerable. They will always be vulnerable - The CIA has only discovered a subset of the global population of software vulnerabilities. Securing the planet is not the CIA's job; it should not be; and searching for vulnerabilities only to disclose them to the world would be a misuse of tax dollars. There are other, preferable, ways of finding, reporting, and patching bugs that do not waste the time of our intelligence agencies.
Their mission is to collect and desseminate information. You seem to have left out that big word beginning with D.
Their purpose certainly isn't to disseminate everything they collect. That would be stupid and entirely counter-productive. Somebody quoted them up above:
Correlating and evaluating intelligence related to the national security and providing appropriate dissemination of such intelligence;
By asking them to disclose vulnerabilities that they're able to exploit, you're asking them to diminish their capabilities. Patching the world isn't their job - Spying on it is.
Correlating and evaluating intelligence related to the national security and providing appropriate dissemination of such intelligence;
The definition of the word "appropriate" makes all the difference in that statement. Is it "appropriate" to sacrifice capabilities in the name of improving the public's general digital security?
I was presenting Clapper as an alternative to "nobody." And, as I mention above somewhere, Obama has denied it too. So, which president do you think is telling the truth? It's not both.
I'll concede that James Clapper's credibility isn't stellar, but it still contradicts GP's assertion that "nobody has denied." Would Obama be any more credible? FTA:
“Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false," said Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president.
Also, James Comey asked the DOJ to deny the assertions, but that stops just short of being an actual denial.
Trump might not have any real credibility but...as much as any of the other three letters.
Are you really saying that information coming to us from DJT is as trustworthy as information being published by the FBI/NSA/CIA?
As far as I'm aware, nobody has denied that Trumps (not the US president at the time) phones were tapped as part of an investigation into his shady links with Russia.
The director of national intelligence at the time of the US election has denied there was any wire-tapping of Donald Trump or his campaign. James Clapper also told NBC that he knew of no court order to allow monitoring of Trump Tower in New York.
They are pictures that young adults have taken of themselves and posted.
FTA:
Images appeared to be stolen from newspapers, blogs and even clothing catalogues, while some were photographs taken secretly, and up close, in public places. One user had even posted a video of a children's dance show.
TFA is not about "young adults" nor pictures "taken of themselves and posted." The only ages I see cited are 10-11. It's about pictures people have taken of children that are being treated as sexual.
We're not running low on game animals and the animals are consumed with little to no waste.
Presumably, the animals that are being tagged and tracked are not the ones that are plentiful in the wild (TFA mentions tigers, white sharks, and wolves.) I'm also making the assumption that these animals are not being hunted to stave off starvation - Otherwise surely they'd be hunting more common game. I know you're just trying to point out that poaching isn't entirely black and white, but when you're hunting tagged animals it sure seems that way.
By default we have no idea when the device is listening (most likely all the time, otherwise how would it know when someone uttered the 'wake word'?)
Per my understanding, they claim that it's always listening, but only recording after it hears the 'wake word'. I tend to believe them - Not because I trust them or undervalue what it would be worth to them to have access to everything said in the home, but because I think they fear the backlash should a case like this come up and it be revealed that they were recording more than they reported.
Slashdot Mirror
This goes hand-in-hand with TFA's conclusion. Start watching a series on Prime, continue watching it pirated. Then, next time, eliminate Prime from the loop since it added so little. Amazon Prime and Netflix will never have as wide a catalog as TPB.
I really doubt that there's a huge contingent of people who are only on Twitter because Trump is.
I'd be curious. I'm in that category. I installed Twitter solely to follow Trump - I follow 2 accounts, both of them him. I don't understand why Americans wouldn't follow him - He makes more announcements over Twitter than in press conferences. I check Twitter every morning just to see what new excitement has been hacked out.
...since, as I don't believe this happened, you can't classify information that doesn't exist...
The information does exist, it's just that all indications are that it's inaccurate. I can't classify false information, but he could. Classification level and accuracy don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. For a little over a decade, I worked closely with a lot of DoE classified information. I've never seen classified information that I knew to be false, but that doesn't mean it can't exist. During the Manhattan project, I'd wager that there was a lot of classified inaccurate information as we were learning. Fortunately, most everything that's classified has been fact-checked more rigorously than DJT's tweets.
What can a tweet start in 2017?
That thought terrifies me and that's the sole reason I installed Twitter and check it every morning.
I hadn't heard Trump say it. I was referencing Nixon. Except that in this case it seems to largely apply. I may have gone too far saying, "whatever he damn well pleases," but it's true with regard to disclosing classified information. Somebody mentioned that he could be caught out for "self-promotion," but he's immune from most of the conflict-of-interest stuff. Somebody also mentioned calling him out for "calls to violence." I'd be curious to see how that one played out. The president is beholden to some of our laws, but there is very little limit to what he can legally tweet.
Even if something becomes unclassified because the president tweeted it doesn't mean it becomes TRUE because the president tweeted it.
No argument there. The nice thing about unclassifying the information is that the statement, "I can neither confirm nor deny," can be reduced to simply, "I can deny."
As President every word you say, every statement you make, has the weight of the US government and military behind it. You damn well can't just say whatever you want, because at best it can cost people money.
Yes, he really can say whatever he damn well pleases. It's terrifying the amount of weight behind it. What he says may be ill-thought out and terrible; it may have globe-shattering implications; he could condemn countless lives with a flick of his thumb; but it's not illegal and there's nothing stopping him. Not if the president does it.
The president enjoys authority over classified information, of course, but at a minimum it would be highly irregular to disclose an intelligence wiretap via Twitter.
A General Hayden explained on the Late Show the other night that the president can tweet whatever he damned well pleases - Since he's the ultimate classification authority, information just BECOMES unclassified BY being tweeted. Of course this is irregular - We've never had a president who used Twitter (or any social media) the way DJT does. This is just an irregular presidency all together.
That's sure the way it seems. This is an obvious case of pot/kettle. I'm sure our response would be the same if the tables were turned. We all act shocked when the other guy is exposed for the same activities that intelligence agencies all over the world surely take part in. The Chinese stand out because the economic espionage is so prevalent.
Perhaps China should be *more* worried about the people who hacked the CIA, rather than the CIA?
Maybe, but I think it's far more likely to be a leak than a hack.
If there are all these security holes in Chinese made kit, then the Russians will be exploiting them just as much as the CIA.
Well, the Russians now know about these vulnerabilities as well as the ones they've discovered on their own - Just like every other country with a cyber-warfare division. You have to assume that there was some overlap - The Russians were likely already exploiting some of these holes. The big difference now is that we have a large number of cards on the table. Oops.
Now, how they knew when a sting was happening...
A simple check box when hailing a ride: "Are you a cop? If you are you have to tell me."
...or when an assault was being planned...
Another simple check box: "Are you planning to discuss politics?"
Here's another.
When the user takes a photo, the app should check whether they're in a national park...and check whether the photo is of a bird.
What does Greyball do, exactly and how does it thwart oversight?
From the linked summary:
This program denies ride requests to users who are violating our terms of service -- whether that's people aiming to physically harm drivers, competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who collude with officials on secret 'stings' meant to entrap drivers.
Still don't know what a "Ghost rider" is or why the CIA leaks link is relevant, but that's how they're skirting regulators.
When I referred to back-end security, I meant in the sense of delays. I realize that's not what I said. Can't watch the videos 'cuz I'm at work, but I'll take it on faith that they explain why a vacuum tube with a bullet loaded with passengers would be THAT much more hazardous than a "normal" train wreck. That wasn't sarcasm. It seems to me that security would be largely pointless unless we secured the whole line to some degree - It would be easy (easier?) to attack the tube/car without even visiting the station. I apologize if I'm missing points covered in the videos.
The prob is the front and back security. Which would have to be applied to hyperloop too.
I'm confused. "Back security"? Even in aircraft, we only check on the front side - Do we need to re-check people after they've reached their destination? Also, why would this need more security than buses or trains? It's not like one's going to get hijacked and rammed into a building.
...do you leave all the computers in the government and major industries that drive our nation like power plants and airlines vulnerable...
Yes, you leave them vulnerable. They will always be vulnerable - The CIA has only discovered a subset of the global population of software vulnerabilities. Securing the planet is not the CIA's job; it should not be; and searching for vulnerabilities only to disclose them to the world would be a misuse of tax dollars. There are other, preferable, ways of finding, reporting, and patching bugs that do not waste the time of our intelligence agencies.
Their mission is to collect and desseminate information. You seem to have left out that big word beginning with D.
Their purpose certainly isn't to disseminate everything they collect. That would be stupid and entirely counter-productive. Somebody quoted them up above:
Correlating and evaluating intelligence related to the national security and providing appropriate dissemination of such intelligence;
By asking them to disclose vulnerabilities that they're able to exploit, you're asking them to diminish their capabilities. Patching the world isn't their job - Spying on it is.
Correlating and evaluating intelligence related to the national security and providing appropriate dissemination of such intelligence;
The definition of the word "appropriate" makes all the difference in that statement. Is it "appropriate" to sacrifice capabilities in the name of improving the public's general digital security?
I was presenting Clapper as an alternative to "nobody." And, as I mention above somewhere, Obama has denied it too. So, which president do you think is telling the truth? It's not both.
I'll concede that James Clapper's credibility isn't stellar, but it still contradicts GP's assertion that "nobody has denied." Would Obama be any more credible?
FTA:
“Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false," said Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president.
Also, James Comey asked the DOJ to deny the assertions, but that stops just short of being an actual denial.
Trump might not have any real credibility but...as much as any of the other three letters.
Are you really saying that information coming to us from DJT is as trustworthy as information being published by the FBI/NSA/CIA?
As far as I'm aware, nobody has denied that Trumps (not the US president at the time) phones were tapped as part of an investigation into his shady links with Russia.
James Clapper did.
FTA:
The director of national intelligence at the time of the US election has denied there was any wire-tapping of Donald Trump or his campaign.
James Clapper also told NBC that he knew of no court order to allow monitoring of Trump Tower in New York.
They are pictures that young adults have taken of themselves and posted.
FTA:
Images appeared to be stolen from newspapers, blogs and even clothing catalogues, while some were photographs taken secretly, and up close, in public places. One user had even posted a video of a children's dance show.
TFA is not about "young adults" nor pictures "taken of themselves and posted." The only ages I see cited are 10-11. It's about pictures people have taken of children that are being treated as sexual.
Now if you want to fuck over the poachers, what you need are decoys that take pictures of the poachers.
I think the only way taking a picture of a poacher would have any impact would be through a scope with a thunderous flash.
We're not running low on game animals and the animals are consumed with little to no waste.
Presumably, the animals that are being tagged and tracked are not the ones that are plentiful in the wild (TFA mentions tigers, white sharks, and wolves.) I'm also making the assumption that these animals are not being hunted to stave off starvation - Otherwise surely they'd be hunting more common game. I know you're just trying to point out that poaching isn't entirely black and white, but when you're hunting tagged animals it sure seems that way.
By default we have no idea when the device is listening (most likely all the time, otherwise how would it know when someone uttered the 'wake word'?)
Per my understanding, they claim that it's always listening, but only recording after it hears the 'wake word'. I tend to believe them - Not because I trust them or undervalue what it would be worth to them to have access to everything said in the home, but because I think they fear the backlash should a case like this come up and it be revealed that they were recording more than they reported.
No need. Mars already has a mountain 15 miles high (Olympus Mons') you can use for that purpose after the atmosphere comes back.
For now, maybe. But what about after the rise of the sea levels? Let's call this what it is - Man-made Martian climate change.