Iraq had WMDs. During the Kuwait invasion Iraqi soldiers threw the babies out of the incubators and took them (the incubators) home. The Vietnamese attacked a US aircraft carrier with rubber boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. Iran wants to destroy Israel. Ghaddafi was killing his citizens, just for fun. Assad threw nerve gas to his citizens, also for the fun of it, or to punish them for support to ISIS (yeah right).
If you get an illegit DMCA takedown note, the guy who issued it is liable. So you can sue him and nail him for the costs he caused. If he can pay is ofc. another matter.
As exemplified by all of the lawsuits over false DMCA take down notices?
The problem here is that, similarly to DMCA takedowns, the default action is going to be to take it down as soon as a complaint is filed, not perform some sort of investigation to make sure the complaint is legit. So if you're a party bent on suppressing unfavorable or inconvenient news, it'll be in your interest to gin up complaints to get it removed. The only thing that would act to ameliorate this would be fines for illegitimate complaints, and what are the chances of that happening?
No, you fail to comprehend people don't need increased bandwidth, and your neighbors don't care to subsidize you, the bandwidth hog. They believe that if you want increased bandwidth, you should pay for it, and they're right.
Give me a traffic meter which is as good as my power meter and stop including unsolicited traffic and I will stop complaining.
Turn the monitor 90deg, use it portrait. Long listings/editor windows. Stuff used less up higher. Less desk space too. No one seems to even think to do that.
Or they do think to try that but the vertical viewing angle when rotated to be horizontal is too narrow on a TN panel and the marketing departments of the manufacturers go out of their way to conceal which panels are TN, IPS, and VA.
I don't know if I would call it fake, but I wouldn't call it news. I have no reason not to believe that the NSA and other government agencies recruit top talent in important fields from college, and I would expect agencies from other countries to recruit top talent in important fields from their colleges.
The NSA, FBI, and other government agencies have been complaining that the revelations of their recent past misdeeds has damaged their ability to recruit the talent needed for computer security. Various government requirements do not help.
I find it astounding that an i7 2600 laptop running at 2.2 ghz can outperform an AMD 8350 at 4.4 ghz at Handbreak. Meanwhile in other tasks there are no such strange anomalies. My guess is they are using an Intel compiler and getting paid by Intel to make sure performance is crippled on AMD as handbreak is used a lot for benchmarks
Last time I checked which was a few weeks ago, Intel's compiler and libraries still disable vector code paths based on the CPU manufacturer identification rather than feature flags.
The NSA has argued for a very long time that good encryption is overall better for national security.
That is certainly their public position but it is undermined by their known activities in subverting encryption including subverting IPSEC. I believe their real position is that they want everybody to rely on flawed encryption without believing it is flawed.
Just to add to this, the membership coup in the NRA was prompted by the 1968 Gun Control Act when the membership realized that the government was going to whittle down gun rights to nothing if they were not opposed and the ACLU had no interest in defending all civil rights. The ACLU likes to say that they do not defend the 2nd Amendment because the NRA already handles it but they never did (for a sinister reason) even when the NRA did not. Before the coup, the NRA was generally for gone control except if applied to the elite.
I'm sure cryptography experts did in fact say it's infeasible or impractable. That's what those of us who work in the field say about things we think nobody can do (probably). For instance, it's currently infeasible to crack 2048 bit Diffie-Hellman. We tend to avoid saying something is impossible, because as soon as you say that someone's likely to do it:) Theoretically, it's trivial to crack Diffie-Hellman, it's not cracked because of the PRACTICAL difficulty of doing so.
Since the government's position is that "limited" is any duration of time which is bounded, I do not know what they are complaining about. Under that definition, any encryption key can be cracked in a limited amount of time.
I expect the experts testifying used illustrations in crayon and very small words. And they still got a weasel-worded statement from the committee. "Cryptography experts and information security professionals believe that it is exceedingly difficult and impractical, if not impossible, to devise and implement a system..." No, that's not what they said. Every single one of them said it is impossible. Because it is.
Congresses come and go, but there is one invariant: they all have trouble with mathematics.
The technology part for key escrow and similar systems works fine but the social part is completely broken. Congress cannot pass a law limiting access which the government cannot later ignore.
He does no such thing. He is suggesting that, say, Apple would hold a key and would only unlock a device in response to the concurrence of two separate branches of government. In this case the executive and judicial.
Do you mean like how the telecommunication companies would only hand over metadata and content to law enforcement when presented with lawful orders until the point where Congress had to pass a law granting them immunity because they did not? How did that work out? Why would it be any different with Apple?
or more likely the owners and staff were gunned down or driven off by the civil war, leaving the doors open and business office available for other sundry activities.
And if that happened at AT&T/Verizon would it even make the news?
The rooms with the NSA gear to tap all AT&T communications made the news and nobody cared.
Yeah the Director is right. They should update the laws. TO STRENGTHEN CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. The judges should be coming down on this shit hard. Your e-mail is exactly the same as your private mail. They couldn't open it then and they shouldn't open it now. It's not rocket science. Your communications are yours and not the governments. Is the post office allowed to read your mail? Fuck no.
I disagree. The courts cannot stop this and do not want to. It would be better if they stopped lying and giving false assurances of privacy and lack of 4th amendment violations. That would encourage citizens to take steps to protect their data.
The companies that run the old POTS lines are private businesses as well, and yet we had the right to privacy when communicating using their equipment.
I have concluded that the old POTs lines were never protected despite what the courts and legislatures have said.
Only the routing information of an IP packet is metadata necessary for the internet companies to know so the only thing the government should be seizing and searching without warrant is the IP addresses and length. Since they consider the data portion to also contain metadata and are searching that to find it, the privacy of the data is an illusion and always was; it is being seized whether it is being searched or not and that apparently is not a 4th amendment violation.
So how is that different from voice calls which may also contain metadata in their content according to the government?
"While it might technically count as a search if an automated program trawls through all the data, the thinking goes, there is no unreasonable harm unless a human being looks at the result of that search..."
If you have an automated search through all data, and then humans are informed of every case where further investigation will occur it is exactly the same as having complete and full investigation of all data. Note also the criteria for search are set by the watchers, and can be changed at any time.
Or you could go the other way. If the data was searched then it was seized which also requires a warrant whether the data was searched or not.
How is that going to work? Standing to bring a court challenge requires either damages which will not exist if you are not charged or evidence of unlawful surveillance which will not exist because of parallel construction. So while the courts may be sympathetic, and I do not think they are, challenging the surveillance is not practical whether it is lawful or not.
And if you do get standing, the government can play the national security card.
I actually agree with him but in a way that the NSA and FBI do not want to happen.
4th amendment protections of online data are an illusion and always were despite previous assurances. The government cannot restrain itself in a way that it cannot ignore. The solution is technological; encrypt all message traffic and treat *all* plaintext traffic as read. Then at least you have a chance of knowing if a search is being executed against you.
Years ago the NSA and FBI realized this would be a threat to ubiquitous online surveillance so besides undermining encryption standards, they also worked to create a false sense of security lowering demand for encrypted services which would undermine their surveillance.
Slashdot Mirror
Fake news is:
Iraq had WMDs.
During the Kuwait invasion Iraqi soldiers threw the babies out of the incubators and took them (the incubators) home.
The Vietnamese attacked a US aircraft carrier with rubber boats in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Iran wants to destroy Israel.
Ghaddafi was killing his citizens, just for fun.
Assad threw nerve gas to his citizens, also for the fun of it, or to punish them for support to ISIS (yeah right).
The government hates competition.
If you get an illegit DMCA takedown note, the guy who issued it is liable. So you can sue him and nail him for the costs he caused. If he can pay is ofc. another matter.
As exemplified by all of the lawsuits over false DMCA take down notices?
The problem here is that, similarly to DMCA takedowns, the default action is going to be to take it down as soon as a complaint is filed, not perform some sort of investigation to make sure the complaint is legit. So if you're a party bent on suppressing unfavorable or inconvenient news, it'll be in your interest to gin up complaints to get it removed. The only thing that would act to ameliorate this would be fines for illegitimate complaints, and what are the chances of that happening?
No news is good news.
That is a DRM feature; you are not suppose to see any of it.
No, you fail to comprehend people don't need increased bandwidth, and your neighbors don't care to subsidize you, the bandwidth hog. They believe that if you want increased bandwidth, you should pay for it, and they're right.
Give me a traffic meter which is as good as my power meter and stop including unsolicited traffic and I will stop complaining.
Turn the monitor 90deg, use it portrait. Long listings/editor windows. Stuff used less up higher. Less desk space too. No one seems to even think to do that.
Or they do think to try that but the vertical viewing angle when rotated to be horizontal is too narrow on a TN panel and the marketing departments of the manufacturers go out of their way to conceal which panels are TN, IPS, and VA.
I don't know if I would call it fake, but I wouldn't call it news. I have no reason not to believe that the NSA and other government agencies recruit top talent in important fields from college, and I would expect agencies from other countries to recruit top talent in important fields from their colleges.
The NSA, FBI, and other government agencies have been complaining that the revelations of their recent past misdeeds has damaged their ability to recruit the talent needed for computer security. Various government requirements do not help.
I find it astounding that an i7 2600 laptop running at 2.2 ghz can outperform an AMD 8350 at 4.4 ghz at Handbreak. Meanwhile in other tasks there are no such strange anomalies. My guess is they are using an Intel compiler and getting paid by Intel to make sure performance is crippled on AMD as handbreak is used a lot for benchmarks
Last time I checked which was a few weeks ago, Intel's compiler and libraries still disable vector code paths based on the CPU manufacturer identification rather than feature flags.
It's really hard to guess how this court case will go. Copyright law is vague enough that it could go any way.
God is on the side with the largest legal budget.
There is no fucking way this is what politicians intended when the law was written. Even I'm not that cynical.
But I am that cynical. This is exactly what the politicians intended and if it was not, then it is what they intend now.
The NSA has argued for a very long time that good encryption is overall better for national security.
That is certainly their public position but it is undermined by their known activities in subverting encryption including subverting IPSEC. I believe their real position is that they want everybody to rely on flawed encryption without believing it is flawed.
Just to add to this, the membership coup in the NRA was prompted by the 1968 Gun Control Act when the membership realized that the government was going to whittle down gun rights to nothing if they were not opposed and the ACLU had no interest in defending all civil rights. The ACLU likes to say that they do not defend the 2nd Amendment because the NRA already handles it but they never did (for a sinister reason) even when the NRA did not. Before the coup, the NRA was generally for gone control except if applied to the elite.
I'm sure cryptography experts did in fact say it's infeasible or impractable. That's what those of us who work in the field say about things we think nobody can do (probably). For instance, it's currently infeasible to crack 2048 bit Diffie-Hellman. We tend to avoid saying something is impossible, because as soon as you say that someone's likely to do it :) Theoretically, it's trivial to crack Diffie-Hellman, it's not cracked because of the PRACTICAL difficulty of doing so.
Since the government's position is that "limited" is any duration of time which is bounded, I do not know what they are complaining about. Under that definition, any encryption key can be cracked in a limited amount of time.
I expect the experts testifying used illustrations in crayon and very small words. And they still got a weasel-worded statement from the committee. "Cryptography experts and information security professionals believe that it is exceedingly difficult and impractical, if not impossible, to devise and implement a system..." No, that's not what they said. Every single one of them said it is impossible. Because it is.
Congresses come and go, but there is one invariant: they all have trouble with mathematics.
The technology part for key escrow and similar systems works fine but the social part is completely broken. Congress cannot pass a law limiting access which the government cannot later ignore.
If phones can't be trusted, then you have to use a connected device that can be.
Tether the secured device to the phone so they are separate and the phone only sees the encrypted data.
He does no such thing. He is suggesting that, say, Apple would hold a key and would only unlock a device in response to the concurrence of two separate branches of government. In this case the executive and judicial.
Do you mean like how the telecommunication companies would only hand over metadata and content to law enforcement when presented with lawful orders until the point where Congress had to pass a law granting them immunity because they did not? How did that work out? Why would it be any different with Apple?
There must be people in high places who can't add, for these projects to be getting built.
They can add just fine which is how they determined that rent seeking is profitable.
The fact is that nobody would get traffic citations if they didn't violate the law.
Having been pulled over for *wearing* a seat belt and then cited, I will respectively disagree with your assertion.
So this wikipedia page is wrong? It says there were multiple warning before NIST ratified the standard and that is how I remember it at the time.
or more likely the owners and staff were gunned down or driven off by the civil war, leaving the doors open and business office available for other sundry activities.
And if that happened at AT&T/Verizon would it even make the news?
The rooms with the NSA gear to tap all AT&T communications made the news and nobody cared.
Yeah the Director is right. They should update the laws. TO STRENGTHEN CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. The judges should be coming down on this shit hard. Your e-mail is exactly the same as your private mail. They couldn't open it then and they shouldn't open it now. It's not rocket science. Your communications are yours and not the governments. Is the post office allowed to read your mail? Fuck no.
I disagree. The courts cannot stop this and do not want to. It would be better if they stopped lying and giving false assurances of privacy and lack of 4th amendment violations. That would encourage citizens to take steps to protect their data.
The companies that run the old POTS lines are private businesses as well, and yet we had the right to privacy when communicating using their equipment.
I have concluded that the old POTs lines were never protected despite what the courts and legislatures have said.
Only the routing information of an IP packet is metadata necessary for the internet companies to know so the only thing the government should be seizing and searching without warrant is the IP addresses and length. Since they consider the data portion to also contain metadata and are searching that to find it, the privacy of the data is an illusion and always was; it is being seized whether it is being searched or not and that apparently is not a 4th amendment violation.
So how is that different from voice calls which may also contain metadata in their content according to the government?
"While it might technically count as a search if an automated program trawls through all the data, the thinking goes, there is no unreasonable harm unless a human being looks at the result of that search..."
If you have an automated search through all data, and then humans are informed of every case where further investigation will occur it is exactly the same as having complete and full investigation of all data. Note also the criteria for search are set by the watchers, and can be changed at any time.
Or you could go the other way. If the data was searched then it was seized which also requires a warrant whether the data was searched or not.
How is that going to work? Standing to bring a court challenge requires either damages which will not exist if you are not charged or evidence of unlawful surveillance which will not exist because of parallel construction. So while the courts may be sympathetic, and I do not think they are, challenging the surveillance is not practical whether it is lawful or not.
And if you do get standing, the government can play the national security card.
I actually agree with him but in a way that the NSA and FBI do not want to happen.
4th amendment protections of online data are an illusion and always were despite previous assurances. The government cannot restrain itself in a way that it cannot ignore. The solution is technological; encrypt all message traffic and treat *all* plaintext traffic as read. Then at least you have a chance of knowing if a search is being executed against you.
Years ago the NSA and FBI realized this would be a threat to ubiquitous online surveillance so besides undermining encryption standards, they also worked to create a false sense of security lowering demand for encrypted services which would undermine their surveillance.