Perhaps because they're not a huge shop, can't afford the kind of security personnel Sony have (fnar fnar), and someone told them that not using the most commonly associated port with a specific service can help protect against automated attacks at the expense of minimal cost to the consumer.
Perhaps.
Re:Another politician with half a brain?
on
EU ACTA Chief Resigns
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
That's not how I understand it. I think you got misled by the misleading title of TFA/TFS. He's not the 'EU ACTA Chief'. He was the European Parliament's rapporteur on ACTA. His job was to investigate the issue and produce a report on it.
In other news, rapporteur on the Holocaust concludes in his 1946 report that it was a Bad Thing.
1. Pick any graphical browser. Any. 2. Navigate to web page. 3. Press F11. OMG ALL TEH BUTTONZ IZ GAWN!
I use Chrome at work as it's fastest at rendering JS heavy content (ticketing and inventory system), Comodo Dragon and Firefox at home. Horses for courses.
Hold on there, bub. Did you post a comment on an internet forum about administering corporal punishment to a member of the judiciary, and the comment was posted using a computer?
Because the documents were illegally obtained by an agent outside of the Wikileaks organisation, still wrongly classified, and not authorized for disclosure because of the embarrassing nature of their contents. Assange continued anyway, with predictable results of demonstrating wide-scale cover-ups of illegal acts by Coalition forces in an ongoing theatre of war. Assange doesn't care who gets hurt by his activities, especially if they are guilty of hiding the murder of civilians from the public eye.
I put it to you that the agencies contacted new the documents were going to be released anyway, and they could have done more to protect their sources by cooperating with the requests of Wikileaks (as well as many reputable news sources who agreed to help redact the documents as best as they could). In my eyes, this is just one more example of those agencies letting innocent people die because of their inadequacies or lack of culpability to the public who they are supposed to protect.
I hope your comment is modded up, so others can have input on the matter. You do have a valid opinion, and it should be discussed.
I'll grant you that Wikileaks made mistakes, such as realising too late how much redacting the documents needed before they were released. If they had done their work better, a lot of names of individual agents and informants could have been left out. But they did try to do it right.
It's important to remember that Wikileaks claims that TLA agencies were contacted in order to assist with redacting sensitive information.
So you're saying that if I type "I killed the man on $date in $location" in a text document and encrypt it with $key, handing over $key is self incrimination. Yet, if I put the same information on a piece of paper and hide it in a safe, handing over the code to the combination lock isn't self incrimination.
Until I thought about it logically, I was in agreement with you. Now I realise how stupid the concept is. You're not going to be asked for the key in court, you're going to be asked during the investigation. The judge doesn't say, while you're standing in the dock "Now, hand over the key to your safe" and then sends the clerk around to your house to fetch the contents. This isn't about self incrimination, this is about withholding evidence which has been subpoenaed, which should absolutely get you in jail for contempt of court.
Whether that penalty is better or worse than the charges proved by the encrypted data is up to the defendant to decide.
I can, as an investigating agent (MITM attack in this hypothetical scenario) absolutely detect that you have sent an encrypted file to another person, as I am unable to determine its contents. That is encryption; I cannot determine the contents of the data, and I am concerned that you do not wish me to know the contents.
If the same data was hidden through steganographic processes within a zip file of holiday snaps, that would be obfuscation; The same data is in a form which makes it appear innocent, and unworthy of attention. I do not know that any sensitive data has been passed.
I don't think we do. We have a law which makes it an offence to fail to provide the decryption key, which in my opinion is far worse. I use the anecdote of TrueCrypt container with no hidden partition:
"Excellent, thank you for the key to the container. Now, give us the key to the hidden container." "I didn't use one. There is no hidden partition." "There is nothing incriminating on the container we can access; Just bank statements and a password file. You must have incriminating evidence in the hidden container." "I didn't use a hidden partition." "We'll see who the jury believes."
What you've done there is mix a straw man fallacy, a loaded question, and a non-sequitur (supporting a piracy service means I don't ever support artists), and rolled it all up into a rhetorical question. 10/10 for delivery, sir! By far this is the most interesting troll I've read in a while.
The discussion was about sending files to a recipient which were too large to attach to email. Anything to say that is on-topic?
I was replying to the parent regarding the USA being "one of the worst" regarding "human rights". Yes, they do horrific things, but they're nowhere near as bad as other places, and that's the only point I was trying to make. They're not gunning down their populations for wanting political change; Bush didn't deploy the military in the Blue states because they didn't support him, yet Gadaffi, Mubarak, and Assad are all guilty or accused of that.
Yes, bad is bad and evil is evil, but there are some evils worse than others. If talking to a less evil country makes a more evil country less evil, I would see that as a net gain.
People will also go undetected. That's the definition of encryption.
No it's not. That's the definition of obfuscation; Making something hidden by way of changing it's appearance into something else. Encryption doesn't protect you from being tracked and identified. It is very easy to identify encrypted data, as it looks like noise; Unencrypted communications look like valid data. All it does is stop someone from (figuratively) listening in on what you're saying. This is how China are able to block Tor at their Great Firewall; Tor data looks like Tor data.
An analogy: Encryption is standing in the middle of a park, having a conversation with someone else in a language nobody listening in can understand; Observers know it's you and them talking, but not what's said. Obfuscation is writing the information on a handkerchief and giving it to the other party, under the pretence of them blowing their nose; Nobody suspects any information changed hands at all.
Pretty sure you could do that without an account. So what were you doing with one?
Supporting a business which offers a service you appreciate, and wish to continue using? I did the same thing with Spotify before the Facebook tie-in, and a few other "Free" sites which offered a great service.
If Google downranked web pages relevant to your search query because they didn't use Google as an advertiser, Google would lose their position as the most frequently used search engine in the western world. "Bing; Serving relevant pages, regardless of advertiser!" and Google suddenly becomes an also-ran.
Do you pierce the corporate veil and order the person that signed off on it? They'll just point to their boss who ordered them to do it or they'd be fired.
Slashdot Mirror
This. Basically, what the fuck are you doing getting involved in designing ANYTHING to do with the wedding? You do realise that if it's not exactly as your fiancée wants it, you're up shit-creek for the rest of your life, right? Every. Single. Argument. Is. Lost. Because you ruined "her special day". Either that, or you can save yourself a shit load of money by having a civil ceremony, as your wife-to-be isn't part of the whole "OMG WEDDIN IZ BEZT DAY OV MAH LYEF!" crowd. In which case, invitation by email. She'll understand.
I'll just leave this comedy sketch by Ed Byrne here for you.
Perhaps because they're not a huge shop, can't afford the kind of security personnel Sony have (fnar fnar), and someone told them that not using the most commonly associated port with a specific service can help protect against automated attacks at the expense of minimal cost to the consumer.
Perhaps.
That's not how I understand it. I think you got misled by the misleading title of TFA/TFS. He's not the 'EU ACTA Chief'. He was the European Parliament's rapporteur on ACTA. His job was to investigate the issue and produce a report on it.
In other news, rapporteur on the Holocaust concludes in his 1946 report that it was a Bad Thing.
He's a little fucking late, don't you think?
I predict unintended consequences
The disclosure of the breach was drafted in 2006, but the tech at the time decided to start a virus scan before sending it.
The mail server only just started responding again.
By visiting that link you automatically agree to the (Lack of) Privacy Policy.
You know what? I don't think I'll click that link.
They don't work like AdBlock on Firefox. Ads aren't displayed, but the servers are still contacted.
I pipe all my browsing through Privoxy. Regardless of browser, I don't see any adverts.
1. Pick any graphical browser. Any.
2. Navigate to web page.
3. Press F11. OMG ALL TEH BUTTONZ IZ GAWN!
I use Chrome at work as it's fastest at rendering JS heavy content (ticketing and inventory system), Comodo Dragon and Firefox at home. Horses for courses.
Hold on there, bub. Did you post a comment on an internet forum about administering corporal punishment to a member of the judiciary, and the comment was posted using a computer?
You'll be hearing from my solicitor.
Ha! You still think this is about justice.
Expect this to be an indication of how the media corps will go after tribute bands and cover artists. "... as made famous by" just died.
Because the documents were illegally obtained by an agent outside of the Wikileaks organisation, still wrongly classified, and not authorized for disclosure because of the embarrassing nature of their contents. Assange continued anyway, with predictable results of demonstrating wide-scale cover-ups of illegal acts by Coalition forces in an ongoing theatre of war. Assange doesn't care who gets hurt by his activities, especially if they are guilty of hiding the murder of civilians from the public eye.
I put it to you that the agencies contacted new the documents were going to be released anyway, and they could have done more to protect their sources by cooperating with the requests of Wikileaks (as well as many reputable news sources who agreed to help redact the documents as best as they could). In my eyes, this is just one more example of those agencies letting innocent people die because of their inadequacies or lack of culpability to the public who they are supposed to protect.
I hope your comment is modded up, so others can have input on the matter. You do have a valid opinion, and it should be discussed.
I'll grant you that Wikileaks made mistakes, such as realising too late how much redacting the documents needed before they were released. If they had done their work better, a lot of names of individual agents and informants could have been left out. But they did try to do it right.
It's important to remember that Wikileaks claims that TLA agencies were contacted in order to assist with redacting sensitive information.
They refused.
It's only law if the people agree to follow it.
See how many of the population pay taxes when they're bankrupt or in jail.
Then you should read the rest of my comment.
So you're saying that if I type "I killed the man on $date in $location" in a text document and encrypt it with $key, handing over $key is self incrimination. Yet, if I put the same information on a piece of paper and hide it in a safe, handing over the code to the combination lock isn't self incrimination.
Until I thought about it logically, I was in agreement with you. Now I realise how stupid the concept is. You're not going to be asked for the key in court, you're going to be asked during the investigation. The judge doesn't say, while you're standing in the dock "Now, hand over the key to your safe" and then sends the clerk around to your house to fetch the contents. This isn't about self incrimination, this is about withholding evidence which has been subpoenaed, which should absolutely get you in jail for contempt of court.
Whether that penalty is better or worse than the charges proved by the encrypted data is up to the defendant to decide.
I can, as an investigating agent (MITM attack in this hypothetical scenario) absolutely detect that you have sent an encrypted file to another person, as I am unable to determine its contents. That is encryption; I cannot determine the contents of the data, and I am concerned that you do not wish me to know the contents.
If the same data was hidden through steganographic processes within a zip file of holiday snaps, that would be obfuscation; The same data is in a form which makes it appear innocent, and unworthy of attention. I do not know that any sensitive data has been passed.
I don't think we do. We have a law which makes it an offence to fail to provide the decryption key, which in my opinion is far worse. I use the anecdote of TrueCrypt container with no hidden partition:
"Excellent, thank you for the key to the container. Now, give us the key to the hidden container."
"I didn't use one. There is no hidden partition."
"There is nothing incriminating on the container we can access; Just bank statements and a password file. You must have incriminating evidence in the hidden container."
"I didn't use a hidden partition."
"We'll see who the jury believes."
What you've done there is mix a straw man fallacy, a loaded question, and a non-sequitur (supporting a piracy service means I don't ever support artists), and rolled it all up into a rhetorical question. 10/10 for delivery, sir! By far this is the most interesting troll I've read in a while.
The discussion was about sending files to a recipient which were too large to attach to email. Anything to say that is on-topic?
I was replying to the parent regarding the USA being "one of the worst" regarding "human rights". Yes, they do horrific things, but they're nowhere near as bad as other places, and that's the only point I was trying to make. They're not gunning down their populations for wanting political change; Bush didn't deploy the military in the Blue states because they didn't support him, yet Gadaffi, Mubarak, and Assad are all guilty or accused of that.
Yes, bad is bad and evil is evil, but there are some evils worse than others. If talking to a less evil country makes a more evil country less evil, I would see that as a net gain.
Joke's on them! I use copy and paste.
People will also go undetected. That's the definition of encryption.
No it's not. That's the definition of obfuscation; Making something hidden by way of changing it's appearance into something else. Encryption doesn't protect you from being tracked and identified. It is very easy to identify encrypted data, as it looks like noise; Unencrypted communications look like valid data. All it does is stop someone from (figuratively) listening in on what you're saying. This is how China are able to block Tor at their Great Firewall; Tor data looks like Tor data.
An analogy: Encryption is standing in the middle of a park, having a conversation with someone else in a language nobody listening in can understand; Observers know it's you and them talking, but not what's said. Obfuscation is writing the information on a handkerchief and giving it to the other party, under the pretence of them blowing their nose; Nobody suspects any information changed hands at all.
(both Taliban/al Qaeda sympathisers, and the Tamil Tigers got a lot of funding doing this sort of thing in the UK and other Western countries)
Biggest [Citation needed] ever.
Pretty sure you could do that without an account. So what were you doing with one?
Supporting a business which offers a service you appreciate, and wish to continue using? I did the same thing with Spotify before the Facebook tie-in, and a few other "Free" sites which offered a great service.
If Google downranked web pages relevant to your search query because they didn't use Google as an advertiser, Google would lose their position as the most frequently used search engine in the western world. "Bing; Serving relevant pages, regardless of advertiser!" and Google suddenly becomes an also-ran.
Do you pierce the corporate veil and order the person that signed off on it? They'll just point to their boss who ordered them to do it or they'd be fired.
Why not? It worked at Nuremberg!