and in the wake of their lurching to aid US govt interests, they realized that you need physical / real evidence to make a rape charge stick, so it looks like the Pentagoon will have to be satisfied with the what remains: A charge that he groped someone.
We can all just wait for the first anonymized peer-to-peer whistleblower programs to appear.
Like I2P. Just connect and start a torrent or use the distributed filesystem. There is some Wikileaks material being mirrored on the network already.
I2P is even more decentralized than TOR so while the latter could conceivably be brought down by a few coordinated western governments, a network like I2P should keep running in the face of attacks so long as encrypted connections don't get entirely blocked.
As a user, how do I tell that the self-signed cert that I received for your site came from you and not from a MITM between you and I? It is a trivial task to set up a rogue "free wifi!" AP that proxies all connections.
1. Never use "free Wifi" without a VPN connection. This is a good general rule.
2. Sites using self-signed certs should publish their cert's fingerprint 'out of band'. This means you can view the fingerprint on some (preferably separate) web site, or a telephone conversation, or on some printed correspondence. Then access the https: site and when the cert dialog appears, tell it to view it so you can see the fingerprint and compare it with the out-of-band version.
Just because this article discusses some right-leaners buring leftist stories, doesn't mean it doesn't happen the other way...
This method of spinning, oft used by the Right and in this very discussion, is called 'throwing the accusation back in their face'. And without any supporting evidence, it's a load of BS.
I don't do anything particularly illegal compared to the next guy and I don't depend upon anyone's opinion of me for income either.
Your faith is touching but a bit misplaced IMHO. The scale and mindset of what we have now is that of a police state, and much of the time they're not going to prioritize killers, etc. It becomes their unofficial job to misconstrue the actions and words of easy targets who do not put their jobs in jeopardy. It makes them look busy and engaged when they're really preying on 'nobodies' to gain stature and job security.
Oh and that electronic close scrutiny that supposedly keeps the innocent out of jail? Hah.
Where are you going to find the money for the forensic specialists when voting computers can't even be effectively audited? How are you going to get access to the surveillance data in the first place when the police say that such mass data releases into court records creates a terrorism risk?
You profess a techno-utopianism which probably cannot work because it puts too much power into the hands of certain people which corrupts them. It is like needing a license not only to drive a car, but to also ride a bike and take a walk. We have already seen the non-digital version of this in the form of East Germany.
starting to mirror Wikileaks files and other material of public interest.
I would say its on the corporate side that we don't have enough whistle-blowers, but you can sometimes also glean info about corporate goings-on through the release of government info.
Perhaps because the President recently signed an order to treat American citizens suspected of hostile acts as if they were "enemy combatants", even killing them without a trial if the military deems necessary.
I would say that, without saying so, the Army now thinks it is their prerogative to detain, harass or kill even a citizen like Applebaum depending on their own internal suspicions and deliberations.
you heard me correctly: the government protects your rights and corporations trample them.
Government is put in place to protect our rights. But whether government prefers to protect our rights, or protect/promote the interests of corporate aristocrats is another matter that depends on the political culture.
And our political culture is still dominated by the effects of market fundamentalism. Most people still believe that government is necessarily evil, so they keep electing people with strong inclinations to use the government for evil.
You would have to be a moron with almost no exposure to a) family b) friends c) colleagues d) search engines, wikipedia, etc. in order to think that ads are an important source of information or that they add value to the consumer experience.
Therefore, I don't get why individualized targeting is good for me unless I'm interested in buying lots of overpriced and ill-conceived products/services. And I don't get why advertising and ad-financed sites need the targeting either: Advertising did just fine as a business before targeting of individuals ensued.
Actually, dpolak's message is more apt than you might think.
Fox went to court against two of its former reporters who were fired for exposing high hormone levels in milk. Fox wanted them to show the milk was OK when it wasn't. So the case was about Fox's "right" to knowingly distort information and lie to its viewers.
Comcast's issue with net neutrality is that it was caught distorting information (falsifying data packets) to prevent P2P type protocols from working.
Why do you think Comcast doesn't have a right to regulate traffic on its own networks?
Not a hard question. Because in the past they didn't have enough self-restraint to keep from interfering with and falsifying customer data packets.
The government FUCKS UP EVERYTHING IT DOES.
Mainly at the hands of people who espouse that bullshit libertarian-right philosophy. The LAST political candidates you should trust are the ones saying that government is necessarily evil; they sneer at government's stated purpose to promote the COMMON good and end up running the nation into the ground with their greed.
The United States of America is the only country in the history of the world that defeats another country's military in war, and then leaves.
Oh really? Then why are we constantly hearing about "American interests abroad"? Those business interests got there largely with the backing of the US military.
And that part about leaving is hilarious. Building military bases around the entire planet is not 'leaving'.
The free market really doesn't handle the situation where there's a nascent market for something which investors are ignoring.
That's because investors (the bigger ones that matter) are acting as a separate self-interested class that has little in common anymore with the rest of society. This cancels their ability to recognize the finer (and even basic) aspects of what consumers need and they begin to look to the police as the way deal with the results of industrial shortcomings (cybercrime)... lobby for ever more police, more prisons, and invest more in police-related industries.
And to think, all they need to do is put a read-only toggle switch on motherboards. It'll never happen at this point though because it doesn't have anything to do with iPhones or re-purposing military 'innovations' for use against the masses here at home.
Trade war is not the best response to what is actually a class war.
Maybe the only way to change the situation (for the better) is to realize that the prison is being run for someone else's benefit, and take away some of the power they have over the prisoners.
The Daily Show get their news second hand mainly from the 'news' outlets they criticize. Yes, its interesting to see them tear apart the lies, distractions, schizophrenia and lopsidedness that passes for news -- but don't mistake that criticism for actual news.
What the Daily Show does is a kind of journalism, but they hardly function as 'reporters' in any significant way.
The people targeted by Chinese crackdowns is also relatively small.
But perhaps you are referring to the number of people who are subject to or potentially targeted by said policies: In that case, it is approximately 80% of the Muslim world that is subject to US policies of invasion, puppet governments, torture, indefinite periods of imprisonment and out-of-the-blue extra-judicial killings.
China may still have more people than the Muslim world, but the scale is definitely in the same league.
Grandma doesn't care what a URL is, only that she can get to the sites she needs. If Firefox 4 is intuitive to her, then it doesn't owe me any apology.
The same reasoning for expediency applies to people who always send email from MS Word, or who use Outlook Express and expect all (active) content to just run.
The argument for convenience and sleek appearances can (and often does) go too far.
All is good as long as I can disable search from the toolbar.
I would say the opposite: People who are most likely to realize the difference and have the knowhow to change the toolbar back are also the ones who can't become confused by the combined toolbar in the first place.
The combined address/search bar should be an option someone can turn on, not a default.
Maybe people are getting tired of remembering different glyphs for each secure site they visit, and you just rather remember the URL?
Using simple, recognizable URIs won't help you...
Sorry, NO! The 'complexity' of remembering and using a site's address is irreducible. People have to learn it and if they don't want to that's TOUGH. Social engineering becomes much worse when you start relying on search terms in place of addresses.
Much of what you say about accessibility is inane: People can still easily access search without having the search and address bars melded together.
Slashdot Mirror
Do a lookup of "walled garden". When you read the description, think about AOL.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone
and in the wake of their lurching to aid US govt interests, they realized that you need physical / real evidence to make a rape charge stick, so it looks like the Pentagoon will have to be satisfied with the what remains: A charge that he groped someone.
We can all just wait for the first anonymized peer-to-peer whistleblower programs to appear.
Like I2P. Just connect and start a torrent or use the distributed filesystem. There is some Wikileaks material being mirrored on the network already.
I2P is even more decentralized than TOR so while the latter could conceivably be brought down by a few coordinated western governments, a network like I2P should keep running in the face of attacks so long as encrypted connections don't get entirely blocked.
As a user, how do I tell that the self-signed cert that I received for your site came from you and not from a MITM between you and I? It is a trivial task to set up a rogue "free wifi!" AP that proxies all connections.
1. Never use "free Wifi" without a VPN connection. This is a good general rule.
2. Sites using self-signed certs should publish their cert's fingerprint 'out of band'. This means you can view the fingerprint on some (preferably separate) web site, or a telephone conversation, or on some printed correspondence. Then access the https: site and when the cert dialog appears, tell it to view it so you can see the fingerprint and compare it with the out-of-band version.
Just because this article discusses some right-leaners buring leftist stories, doesn't mean it doesn't happen the other way...
This method of spinning, oft used by the Right and in this very discussion, is called 'throwing the accusation back in their face'. And without any supporting evidence, it's a load of BS.
I don't do anything particularly illegal compared to the next guy and I don't depend upon anyone's opinion of me for income either.
Your faith is touching but a bit misplaced IMHO. The scale and mindset of what we have now is that of a police state, and much of the time they're not going to prioritize killers, etc. It becomes their unofficial job to misconstrue the actions and words of easy targets who do not put their jobs in jeopardy. It makes them look busy and engaged when they're really preying on 'nobodies' to gain stature and job security.
Oh and that electronic close scrutiny that supposedly keeps the innocent out of jail? Hah.
Where are you going to find the money for the forensic specialists when voting computers can't even be effectively audited? How are you going to get access to the surveillance data in the first place when the police say that such mass data releases into court records creates a terrorism risk?
You profess a techno-utopianism which probably cannot work because it puts too much power into the hands of certain people which corrupts them. It is like needing a license not only to drive a car, but to also ride a bike and take a walk. We have already seen the non-digital version of this in the form of East Germany.
starting to mirror Wikileaks files and other material of public interest.
I would say its on the corporate side that we don't have enough whistle-blowers, but you can sometimes also glean info about corporate goings-on through the release of government info.
I suspect that entire subnets of the Internet will be encrypted and continue to allow anonymity.
Really?? Who do you think would implement an idea like that...
Or he could torrent the footage on an anonymous network.
Much as I like creators to be able to get paid, I hate even more for culture and information to be lost.
I think the creators are dead.
Perhaps because the President recently signed an order to treat American citizens suspected of hostile acts as if they were "enemy combatants", even killing them without a trial if the military deems necessary.
I would say that, without saying so, the Army now thinks it is their prerogative to detain, harass or kill even a citizen like Applebaum depending on their own internal suspicions and deliberations.
A: How to market something cheap and flimsy to people as a way to stimulate the regional economy... via disposable consumerism.
you heard me correctly: the government protects your rights and corporations trample them.
Government is put in place to protect our rights. But whether government prefers to protect our rights, or protect/promote the interests of corporate aristocrats is another matter that depends on the political culture.
And our political culture is still dominated by the effects of market fundamentalism. Most people still believe that government is necessarily evil, so they keep electing people with strong inclinations to use the government for evil.
You would have to be a moron with almost no exposure to a) family b) friends c) colleagues d) search engines, wikipedia, etc. in order to think that ads are an important source of information or that they add value to the consumer experience.
Therefore, I don't get why individualized targeting is good for me unless I'm interested in buying lots of overpriced and ill-conceived products/services. And I don't get why advertising and ad-financed sites need the targeting either: Advertising did just fine as a business before targeting of individuals ensued.
Actually, dpolak's message is more apt than you might think.
Fox went to court against two of its former reporters who were fired for exposing high hormone levels in milk. Fox wanted them to show the milk was OK when it wasn't. So the case was about Fox's "right" to knowingly distort information and lie to its viewers.
Comcast's issue with net neutrality is that it was caught distorting information (falsifying data packets) to prevent P2P type protocols from working.
Why do you think Comcast doesn't have a right to regulate traffic on its own networks?
Not a hard question. Because in the past they didn't have enough self-restraint to keep from interfering with and falsifying customer data packets.
The government FUCKS UP EVERYTHING IT DOES.
Mainly at the hands of people who espouse that bullshit libertarian-right philosophy. The LAST political candidates you should trust are the ones saying that government is necessarily evil; they sneer at government's stated purpose to promote the COMMON good and end up running the nation into the ground with their greed.
The United States of America is the only country in the history of the world that defeats another country's military in war, and then leaves.
Oh really? Then why are we constantly hearing about "American interests abroad"? Those business interests got there largely with the backing of the US military.
And that part about leaving is hilarious. Building military bases around the entire planet is not 'leaving'.
The free market really doesn't handle the situation where there's a nascent market for something which investors are ignoring.
That's because investors (the bigger ones that matter) are acting as a separate self-interested class that has little in common anymore with the rest of society. This cancels their ability to recognize the finer (and even basic) aspects of what consumers need and they begin to look to the police as the way deal with the results of industrial shortcomings (cybercrime)... lobby for ever more police, more prisons, and invest more in police-related industries.
And to think, all they need to do is put a read-only toggle switch on motherboards. It'll never happen at this point though because it doesn't have anything to do with iPhones or re-purposing military 'innovations' for use against the masses here at home.
Trade war is not the best response to what is actually a class war.
Maybe the only way to change the situation (for the better) is to realize that the prison is being run for someone else's benefit, and take away some of the power they have over the prisoners.
The Daily Show get their news second hand mainly from the 'news' outlets they criticize. Yes, its interesting to see them tear apart the lies, distractions, schizophrenia and lopsidedness that passes for news -- but don't mistake that criticism for actual news.
What the Daily Show does is a kind of journalism, but they hardly function as 'reporters' in any significant way.
How about the "nuance" of demanding "full-spectrum dominance" (full control) over the planet?
Maybe some of us are *reacting* to the "over-stark black-and-white" world view espoused by the Pentagon.
The people targeted by Chinese crackdowns is also relatively small.
But perhaps you are referring to the number of people who are subject to or potentially targeted by said policies: In that case, it is approximately 80% of the Muslim world that is subject to US policies of invasion, puppet governments, torture, indefinite periods of imprisonment and out-of-the-blue extra-judicial killings.
China may still have more people than the Muslim world, but the scale is definitely in the same league.
Grandma doesn't care what a URL is, only that she can get to the sites she needs. If Firefox 4 is intuitive to her, then it doesn't owe me any apology.
The same reasoning for expediency applies to people who always send email from MS Word, or who use Outlook Express and expect all (active) content to just run.
The argument for convenience and sleek appearances can (and often does) go too far.
All is good as long as I can disable search from the toolbar.
I would say the opposite: People who are most likely to realize the difference and have the knowhow to change the toolbar back are also the ones who can't become confused by the combined toolbar in the first place.
The combined address/search bar should be an option someone can turn on, not a default.
Maybe people are getting tired of remembering different glyphs for each secure site they visit, and you just rather remember the URL?
Using simple, recognizable URIs won't help you...
Sorry, NO! The 'complexity' of remembering and using a site's address is irreducible. People have to learn it and if they don't want to that's TOUGH. Social engineering becomes much worse when you start relying on search terms in place of addresses.
Much of what you say about accessibility is inane: People can still easily access search without having the search and address bars melded together.