The defense agency is nervous that criminals and terrorists will turn off-the-shelf products into tools and devices to harm citizens or disrupt American military operations.
As opposed to just buying a gun?
The average "criminal" is NOT going to re-write code or anything like that. S/He will use the same tried-and-true methods that have proven successful for so many years.
Nope. Looks like you got it. Even from the summary:
But professors are striking back. "My microbiology professor does a watch check every time we have a test," says Abigail Lauze. "If it's not an old school analog it has to come off and go in the cell phone bin."
Sounds good. Every student gets a bag. Puts his/her name on it. Then puts ALL of his/her electronics into the bag. They can be reclaimed AFTER the test ON THEIR WAY OUT OF THE CLASSROOM.
This makes no sense to me. so you agree it's a pro-corporate, pro-money left leaning rag?
Rag? Yes. Pro-corporate? Yes. Pro-money? Yes. Left-leaning? Disagree. At best it is leaning towards Centrist. At worst, it is just less Right-leaning that others.
I used to work in the fun little world of TS and above clearances (specifically in a technical role with what eventually became the F-117A Nighthawk). Our instructions were very clear and simple: if it's marked classified, it never leaves Tonopah Test Range.
Not me. I only had a Secret clearance. And that was while I was in the Army. And that was back in the 80's. So we had Soviets and a divided Germany.
And our instructions were to NEVER talk about ANYTHING work related to ANYONE who did not have a need to know AND a clearance.
It might not seem like important information to YOU but that is because YOU do not know what OTHER information the enemy has.
Therein lies my point - if it would land us peons in prison, then why should the law exempt her for doing the same thing?
Or, to quote Hillary Clinton:
"Why is there one standard for me and not for everybody else?"
If we had done things similar, we WOULD be rotting in Leavenworth.
FUCK! We even had to answer the TELEPHONE with the statement "this line is not secure".
Moreover, her statement of "it was above board when I did it" was correct, in that it was contingent upon those e-mails being turned over upon her exit from the position, so the initial setup wouldn't have had reasons to raise suspicions of wrongdoing at that time.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
As Secretary of State she should have known that she would receive emails containing classified information. Even if that information was NOT classified when it was sent. But would be considered classified at some point in the future.
Her "crimes" are: a. treating ALL messages as if they were AND WOULD REMAIN unclassified.
b. setting herself up as the arbiter of what should be released to the government and what should not be.
Internally, Mozilla has agreed to allow Symantec to issue these certificates under two conditions: the entire process should be transparent, and that the certificates should expire after only 90 days.
So if the certificates expire in 90 days (and are replaced with better ones) I'm okay with that.
The part I still don't understand is why anyone would still need the old SHA-1 certificates. Are their systems THAT OLD? If so, I'm sure they have other problems that haven't been addressed.
"To allow this phone to sit there, and not make an effort to get the information or the data that may be inside of that phone is simply not fair to the victims or the families."
Why is it "not fair"?
You know who did it. You know why they did it. You know that they are now dead.
Why would it be more "fair" to the families of the victims to destroy the security of everyone using an iPhone?
And yes, the tech would leak out. And be abused. Today "terrorists" and tomorrow everyone.
I'm pretty sure that the journalist who wrote this did not understand the material. From TFA:
High-Tech Bridge experts say that most of these untrusted certificates are because many SSL VPNs come with default pre-installed certificates that are rarely updated.
The rarely updated part can be bad. Particularly if we're talking about SSL2 and so on.
But unless the vendor is using the same certificate on all the boxes they sell, I'm not seeing a big problem.
On my Linux box, web pages load instantly without any problems.
On my iPhone, web pages load reloading On my iPhone, web pages load reloading On my Full page ad loads. Can I close the ad? Oops. Now I'm at the App Store looking at the app for that site. Close the app store. Try to start the process again. On my iPhone, web pages load reloading On my back to the top of the page On my iPhone, web pages load Script loads ALL the social media links. No thanks. Not going to "share" this. back to the top of the page
Fuck it. If it is important I'll remember to look at it on my PC.
"Thereâ(TM)s a reason its called and advanced persistent threat; we'll poke and poke and wait and wait until we get in."
No. It's called that because it sounds scarier than "got past my mediocre defenses".
If they did not have to burn a zero-day (or rappel through a skylight) to get in then it is plain-old "cracking". People just prefer to call it "APT" because no one can defend against an "APT attack".
If they could defend against it then it would be a regular-type-attack that was successfully defended against.
Anything they were going to upload they could upload while the users were reading the "explanation" about the "drive failure".
The same with anything they might be able to download from the users' machines.
Easier still would be to set up a junk Twitter account and ask those users to follow it for updates on the "repair" work. Then get a warrant and ask Twitter for the details of anyone following that account.
... accessed such sites through encrypted addresses.
Do they mean Tor and such? Because if so, then how did they get addresses even when they were running it?
Also, why not just remove all the images so that the links show errors. You'd achieve the same end results but you wouldn't be hosting or DISTRIBUTING kiddie porn. Claim it was a drive failure or whatever.
Not to mention possibly being able to track the people who complained about the images being broken. Get them to use another, non-Tor, way to check when the images would be fixed.
I think the surprise part is that it's a 5x jump in interest from just three years ago.
It's a survey. That means it comes down to which questions are asked.
From the available material it seems that they were asking about "childproof" guns. And that would be a sub-set of the "smart gun" functionality. But it may not be the same question that was asked 3 years ago.
Kind of like a survey asking if people preferred a "strong military" and then then claiming that Candidate X's support had gone up 5x. While Candidate X may be campaigning on a "strong military" platform that does not mean supporting a "strong military" equates to supporting Candidate X.
Among the findings: Fifty-nine percent of all respondents said they would be willing to consider a childproof gun if they were to purchase a new weapon.
Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?
The issue is when it comes down to the specific technology. Will the gun function when you need it to?
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to just buying a gun?
The average "criminal" is NOT going to re-write code or anything like that. S/He will use the same tried-and-true methods that have proven successful for so many years.
This is STUPID.
Nope. Looks like you got it. Even from the summary:
Sounds good. Every student gets a bag. Puts his/her name on it. Then puts ALL of his/her electronics into the bag. They can be reclaimed AFTER the test ON THEIR WAY OUT OF THE CLASSROOM.
Rag? Yes.
Pro-corporate? Yes.
Pro-money? Yes.
Left-leaning? Disagree. At best it is leaning towards Centrist. At worst, it is just less Right-leaning that others.
How about this?
It is "left-leaning" if you only consider a 1-dimensional "spectrum" with one side being "left" and the other being "right".
Now, change it to a 2-dimensional triangle with the vertices of "left", "right" and "centrist" and the placement changes.
Now make it a 3-dimensional model with "pro-corporate" and "anti-corporate" added and the difference should be obvious.
It also helps with the "anything that is to the left of me is leftist" and "anything that is to the right of me is fascist" tirades.
So two media corporations could be at the same level of pro-corporate yet differ along the "centrist" and "right" scale.
But that kind of nuance isn't very popular.
I don't think that David Duke would be considered "left-leaning" by many.
Google "Judith Miller". See how the New York Times presented her material vs opposing material regarding the Iraq War.
There is very little "left-leaning" media in the USofA. Most of it would be corporate-leaning.
And they love him because (exactly as he says) he brings in the ratings for them. He's always ready for a friendly interview.
Even the most basic procedures can have unexpected consequences. Human bodies are poorly standardized.
What will happen is that surgery becomes easier for surgeons.
But they will NEVER let a ROBOT (and this is NOT a robot) perform surgery.
Not me. I only had a Secret clearance. And that was while I was in the Army. And that was back in the 80's. So we had Soviets and a divided Germany.
And our instructions were to NEVER talk about ANYTHING work related to ANYONE who did not have a need to know AND a clearance.
It might not seem like important information to YOU but that is because YOU do not know what OTHER information the enemy has.
Or, to quote Hillary Clinton:
If we had done things similar, we WOULD be rotting in Leavenworth.
FUCK! We even had to answer the TELEPHONE with the statement "this line is not secure".
Those statements do not seem to apply to this thread.
Unless you are now agreeing with me that she incorrectly handled the messages by treating them ALL as unclassified.
Remember, SOME of the messages that she turned over were found to contain information that was later classified.
And she should have known that such would be the case.
Yes, some is.
But other messages are not. And will never be.
And some messages become "classified" (confidential / secret / top secret / etc) only AFTER being combined with other messages/information.
And as Secretary of State she should have known that.
Instead, she treated all the messages the same as she would treat a message saying that someone has free puppies to give-away.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
As Secretary of State she should have known that she would receive emails containing classified information. Even if that information was NOT classified when it was sent. But would be considered classified at some point in the future.
Her "crimes" are:
a. treating ALL messages as if they were AND WOULD REMAIN unclassified.
b. setting herself up as the arbiter of what should be released to the government and what should not be.
That claim keeps popping up. It's wrong.
We are "constitutional" because we have a Constitution. But that a bit of a tautology.
"Republic" means that we are not a monarchy.
We have a "representative democracy" where laws are voted upon by "representatives" who are voted for by our citizens.
I doubt it. More like fewer and fewer people are available with the specialized knowledge at each level.
Entry? Lots of people. ... even fewer.
1 step above entry? Fewer people.
2 steps
etc.
Also, from TFA:
Travel is hazardous. And fame/notoriety means that LEO's are looking for you.
Which reduces the pool of available talent at each level (which is already a small pool at the upper levels).
There is one aspect that is hopeful:
So if the certificates expire in 90 days (and are replaced with better ones) I'm okay with that.
The part I still don't understand is why anyone would still need the old SHA-1 certificates. Are their systems THAT OLD? If so, I'm sure they have other problems that haven't been addressed.
Why is it "not fair"?
You know who did it.
You know why they did it.
You know that they are now dead.
Why would it be more "fair" to the families of the victims to destroy the security of everyone using an iPhone?
And yes, the tech would leak out. And be abused. Today "terrorists" and tomorrow everyone.
I'm pretty sure that the journalist who wrote this did not understand the material. From TFA:
The rarely updated part can be bad. Particularly if we're talking about SSL2 and so on.
But unless the vendor is using the same certificate on all the boxes they sell, I'm not seeing a big problem.
Quite correct.
On my Linux box, web pages load instantly without any problems.
On my iPhone, web pages load
reloading
On my iPhone, web pages load
reloading
On my
Full page ad loads.
Can I close the ad? Oops. Now I'm at the App Store looking at the app for that site.
Close the app store.
Try to start the process again.
On my iPhone, web pages load
reloading
On my
back to the top of the page
On my iPhone, web pages load
Script loads ALL the social media links. No thanks. Not going to "share" this.
back to the top of the page
Fuck it. If it is important I'll remember to look at it on my PC.
There's a part I disagree with him on. From TFA:
No. It's called that because it sounds scarier than "got past my mediocre defenses".
If they did not have to burn a zero-day (or rappel through a skylight) to get in then it is plain-old "cracking". People just prefer to call it "APT" because no one can defend against an "APT attack".
If they could defend against it then it would be a regular-type-attack that was successfully defended against.
The rest of his advice is good enough.
Anything they were going to upload they could upload while the users were reading the "explanation" about the "drive failure".
The same with anything they might be able to download from the users' machines.
Easier still would be to set up a junk Twitter account and ask those users to follow it for updates on the "repair" work. Then get a warrant and ask Twitter for the details of anyone following that account.
Do they mean Tor and such? Because if so, then how did they get addresses even when they were running it?
Also, why not just remove all the images so that the links show errors. You'd achieve the same end results but you wouldn't be hosting or DISTRIBUTING kiddie porn. Claim it was a drive failure or whatever.
Not to mention possibly being able to track the people who complained about the images being broken. Get them to use another, non-Tor, way to check when the images would be fixed.
It's a survey. That means it comes down to which questions are asked.
From the available material it seems that they were asking about "childproof" guns. And that would be a sub-set of the "smart gun" functionality. But it may not be the same question that was asked 3 years ago.
Kind of like a survey asking if people preferred a "strong military" and then then claiming that Candidate X's support had gone up 5x. While Candidate X may be campaigning on a "strong military" platform that does not mean supporting a "strong military" equates to supporting Candidate X.
Here's a link you might be interested in:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2015.303041Then click on the "PDF" link.
$22 to read the research before commenting on the summary? Fuck no.
It's even better than that. From TFA:
Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?
The issue is when it comes down to the specific technology. Will the gun function when you need it to?
Someone has "high tech" cut the fibre! Where will my pr0n go?
And why wait for the Super Bowl to do this?
And why is this a "threat"?