I understand them well. I would never cede their understanding to Julien Assange however. His *version* of them never involves himself, or perhaps always or only involves himself. If your life blood is "leaks" then you had best be squeaky clean yourself, and open. He is not. At least Robin Hood admitted he was a thief.
So, you don't deny the right of the "innocent" people to have their identity protected, you just deny Assange's right to complain that actions of The Guardian allegedly breached the rights to anonymity for these people?
Would it matter for you if I'm pointing that the complaint is actually issued by WikiLeaks as an organisation?
Yes, and damned well they should unless your moral views are very shallow.
Yes and damned well they should.
Because two actions use the same mean doesn't make the actions equivalent.
To put it into perspective: self-defense and premeditated murder may use a firearm. Are they equivalent?
Just from curiosity: is the identity of the original leakers also subject to your postulate on selective leaking?
The names of many people who would not have like to have been named were in the documents leaked and released.
Well, the devil in the details. It's not about what the people want or not, it's the difference between what one is doing (which is important) and the identity/position of the person doing it (which may be important - if that person has chances of persisting in doing it. e.g. Hillary asking for private data on UN officials - or may be not important - I didn't care to know who is the blonde nurse Gaddafi hold dear, she wasn't doing anything of consequence to Libyan people).
With the CableGate leak, WL seems to try protecting the identity of the people that are not of any consequence in the action.
I do not see why the person leaking should expect any special treatment in that regard; of course an organization that leaks that would see fewer leaks come in to be sure, but it is fair game if someone ELSE can extract it from the site data is leaked to...
Difference between expectations and risks. Would I be a leaker, I'd expect the leak destination to do everything possible to protect my identity (even if I would also be prepared for the risk of this not happening, I consider the expectation of anonymity as legitimate).
From this "generalized" angle (i.e. "category of info that should not leak") , I'm not seeing in any way as paradoxical the current WL action against Guardian. If WL is right, that's a breach in the agreement the two parties had, agreement by which WL were doing "their best" to keep the "innocent's identities" covered.
To put it in short: the fact that two actions share a common mean to reach a goal does not make the two actions equivalent. I still don't see publishing facts and publishing person identities as being two similar actions only because both are done by "leaking".
Either you support leaks or you do not. Selective leaking is simply propaganda dressed up to look pretty.
Just from curiosity: is the identity of the original leakers also subject to your postulate on selective leaking? (i.e. is there any category of information that should not leak?)
2. Webbrowsinghistory retention - quote: ZDNet Australia broke the news on Friday that the Federal Government Attorney-General's Department was considering how it could best implement a data retention regime in Australia.. Please note: not "If it could implement..." but "how it could best implement...".
DNS hijacking (DHS doing MAFIAA a favor)
Unreliable CA (all over the world)
Online censorship (in China and Australia)
Spying on citizens to different degrees (from "surfing history only" - in EU and Australia - to "everything that goes online" in Iran)
With hundreds of millions not caring enough to protect whatever identifies them on Faecebook, G+ and others.
It sounds like an interesting result, but not so practical in application...
What's worse that this: based on the abstract, all they did is to theoretically compute the composition required to lower the bandgap from 3.8 eV to a 2eV required to split the water. Since not yet realized in practice, lots of other things are not (yet) known:
1. efficiency (including the problem of keeping off the recombination of H and OH that most probably result)
2. stability to corrosion
would be the first two to pop into my mind.
I drew up all kinds of plans and pictures and routes of autonomous robotic water craft that would run on sea water and traverse the Pacific ocean from my home state to Japan and back.
Let me guess: your parents moved in Montana shortly afterwards, amiright?
It'd save more energy to simply kill off half of the world population. But hey, since people are already here, and the newspaper & grass clipping are already there, might as well find a way to turn the extra waste into something useful that everyone can use.
If you start with the so called western civilization, you may find you don't need to kill half a population (the per-capita energy consumption in US is approx 3.5 times the world average).
And it rocks !! Both !! At the same time !! Because it's free !! As in beer !! And beer ROCKS !! Until the lease expires !! Then it's just pisswater !! Unless it's BUD !! Then it alway was pisswater !!
It's already expired? TFA:
It's a free & open source plug-in for Visual Studio 2010
Quick Start Guide
1. Uninstall any previous versions of "IronPython Tools" or PTVS (if any)
2. Install a Python distribution
3. Install Visual Studio 2010
4....
At point 4, they should have written "Profit" - last time I checked the Visual Studio 2010 (not the Express version) is NOT free.
Yeah, it's strongarm tactics, but if you're living outside the law, you can't exactly complain to the cops to help you out that someone's bullying you.
TFA:
'You need to target the organizations that should have the ability to pay license versus going after individual users or the people who crack the software.'
What about the ones that genuinely believed they paid for the product they bought from a fence? Why should the one pay and not the fence?
You do realize this was the 8th most destructive storm, in terms of property damage and I used the top 10 in fatalities in that time frame?
If a tropical storm results in such a large damage on properties, then:
a. it says a lot about how prepared are the said properties to cope with tropical storms. Hiding that it wasn't actually a hurricane won't make anyone paying attention to this, thus...
b.... when a "proper hurricane" strikes, I wonder what will be the extent of the damages?
Anything a legit user can do a MITM can do better.
This "all-software" solution is either bullshit, or relies on pre-shared keys (be they specific keys or hardware-derived).
Without keys / hardware, there is absolutely nothing a legit user can send out that a MITM can't.
Connecting to multiple networks in the same time, launching the same request and comparing the content of the received answers? In the context of WiFI, unless you are surrounded by the MITM (in which case the appropriate term should be "Man All Over You"), you are bound to detect some tampering.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand them well. I would never cede their understanding to Julien Assange however. His *version* of them never involves himself, or perhaps always or only involves himself. If your life blood is "leaks" then you had best be squeaky clean yourself, and open. He is not. At least Robin Hood admitted he was a thief.
So, you don't deny the right of the "innocent" people to have their identity protected, you just deny Assange's right to complain that actions of The Guardian allegedly breached the rights to anonymity for these people?
Would it matter for you if I'm pointing that the complaint is actually issued by WikiLeaks as an organisation?
FTFA:
Wikileaks complaining of a leak?
Yes, and damned well they should unless your moral views are very shallow.
Yes and damned well they should.
Because two actions use the same mean doesn't make the actions equivalent.
To put it into perspective: self-defense and premeditated murder may use a firearm. Are they equivalent?
The purpose of accepting leaks as declared by Wikileaks is to expose malfeasance.
There, FTFY (otherwise "leaking" may a mean to various ends). Otherwise, all's well.
Just from curiosity: is the identity of the original leakers also subject to your postulate on selective leaking?
The names of many people who would not have like to have been named were in the documents leaked and released.
Well, the devil in the details. It's not about what the people want or not, it's the difference between what one is doing (which is important) and the identity/position of the person doing it (which may be important - if that person has chances of persisting in doing it. e.g. Hillary asking for private data on UN officials - or may be not important - I didn't care to know who is the blonde nurse Gaddafi hold dear, she wasn't doing anything of consequence to Libyan people).
With the CableGate leak, WL seems to try protecting the identity of the people that are not of any consequence in the action.
I do not see why the person leaking should expect any special treatment in that regard; of course an organization that leaks that would see fewer leaks come in to be sure, but it is fair game if someone ELSE can extract it from the site data is leaked to...
Difference between expectations and risks. Would I be a leaker, I'd expect the leak destination to do everything possible to protect my identity (even if I would also be prepared for the risk of this not happening, I consider the expectation of anonymity as legitimate).
From this "generalized" angle (i.e. "category of info that should not leak") , I'm not seeing in any way as paradoxical the current WL action against Guardian. If WL is right, that's a breach in the agreement the two parties had, agreement by which WL were doing "their best" to keep the "innocent's identities" covered.
To put it in short: the fact that two actions share a common mean to reach a goal does not make the two actions equivalent.
I still don't see publishing facts and publishing person identities as being two similar actions only because both are done by "leaking".
is there any category of information that should not leak?
Many say no. But claiming special dispensation on a leak .. that is just delicious.
-Seraphim
I wonder what you understand on the difference between "secrecy in governance" and "personal privacy"/"anonymity"/"pseudonimity"?
There is no honor amongst thieves.
Either you support leaks or you do not. Selective leaking is simply propaganda dressed up to look pretty.
Just from curiosity: is the identity of the original leakers also subject to your postulate on selective leaking? (i.e. is there any category of information that should not leak?)
THIS is what Wikileaks should be doing. Helping expose corrupt organizations that push government to act and pursue certain things.
Do you suggest Wikileaks better keep their mouth shut about governments gladly falling to the push?
1. censorship - ISP voluntary filtering is up an' kicking (and don't give the "change your ISP", some of us can't do it)
2. Web browsing history retention - quote: ZDNet Australia broke the news on Friday that the Federal Government Attorney-General's Department was considering how it could best implement a data retention regime in Australia..
Please note: not "If it could implement..." but "how it could best implement...".
Now, sleep tight and sweet dreams.
DNS hijacking (DHS doing MAFIAA a favor)
Unreliable CA (all over the world)
Online censorship (in China and Australia)
Spying on citizens to different degrees (from "surfing history only" - in EU and Australia - to "everything that goes online" in Iran)
With hundreds of millions not caring enough to protect whatever identifies them on Faecebook, G+ and others.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
It sounds like an interesting result, but not so practical in application...
What's worse that this: based on the abstract, all they did is to theoretically compute the composition required to lower the bandgap from 3.8 eV to a 2eV required to split the water. Since not yet realized in practice, lots of other things are not (yet) known:
1. efficiency (including the problem of keeping off the recombination of H and OH that most probably result)
2. stability to corrosion
would be the first two to pop into my mind.
On a second thought... no, it can't be: engineers can't access data of any value, can they now?
That's a joke, right?
On a second thought... comparing the salaries of MBA graduates with those of engineers, maybe is not so funny anymore?
On a second thought... no, it can't be: engineers can't access data of any value, can they now?
That's a joke, right?
For you to sleep better: yes, it is... or at least an attempt to make one.
I drew up all kinds of plans and pictures and routes of autonomous robotic water craft that would run on sea water and traverse the Pacific ocean from my home state to Japan and back.
Let me guess: your parents moved in Montana shortly afterwards, amiright?
Tiny little bugs that measure something, which can be combined into a completely novel picture of the world.
Google doesn't do it yet at full scale, they're an advertising company whose primary inputs are words and human behaviours.
FTFY (remember Google maps with satellite pictures?)
Ah, that explains everything.
No engineers have been caught because they are behind 7 proxies and only accept payment in bitcoins.
FTFY.
On a second thought... no, it can't be: engineers can't access data of any value, can they now?
It'd save more energy to simply kill off half of the world population. But hey, since people are already here, and the newspaper & grass clipping are already there, might as well find a way to turn the extra waste into something useful that everyone can use.
If you start with the so called western civilization, you may find you don't need to kill half a population (the per-capita energy consumption in US is approx 3.5 times the world average).
Microsoft's IDEs are very good.
Note that while VS is not FOSS, this project *is*, which means users can take and extend its functionality as needed
WHOOSH!
And it rocks !! Both !! At the same time !! Because it's free !! As in beer !! And beer ROCKS !! Until the lease expires !! Then it's just pisswater !! Unless it's BUD !! Then it alway was pisswater !!
It's already expired? TFA:
It's a free & open source plug-in for Visual Studio 2010
Quick Start Guide ...
1. Uninstall any previous versions of "IronPython Tools" or PTVS (if any)
2. Install a Python distribution
3. Install Visual Studio 2010
4.
At point 4, they should have written "Profit" - last time I checked the Visual Studio 2010 (not the Express version) is NOT free.
Yeah, it's strongarm tactics, but if you're living outside the law, you can't exactly complain to the cops to help you out that someone's bullying you.
TFA:
'You need to target the organizations that should have the ability to pay license versus going after individual users or the people who crack the software.'
What about the ones that genuinely believed they paid for the product they bought from a fence? Why should the one pay and not the fence?
You do realize this was the 8th most destructive storm, in terms of property damage and I used the top 10 in fatalities in that time frame?
If a tropical storm results in such a large damage on properties, then: ... when a "proper hurricane" strikes, I wonder what will be the extent of the damages?
a. it says a lot about how prepared are the said properties to cope with tropical storms. Hiding that it wasn't actually a hurricane won't make anyone paying attention to this, thus...
b.
but I just had this gut feeling that something bad would happen if I didn't.
See what happens if you let your ass think for you?
"Sexual relations between ancient humans and their evolutionary cousins were critical for our modern immune systems"
It also lead to the creation of soccer hooligans and red necks.
Look at the bright side, please: the soccer hooligans and red necks have better chances to survive viral infections. ;)
Faking that would require splicing words into a verbal conversation in real time.
Even more, in what language?
Anything a legit user can do a MITM can do better.
This "all-software" solution is either bullshit, or relies on pre-shared keys (be they specific keys or hardware-derived). Without keys / hardware, there is absolutely nothing a legit user can send out that a MITM can't.
Connecting to multiple networks in the same time, launching the same request and comparing the content of the received answers?
In the context of WiFI, unless you are surrounded by the MITM (in which case the appropriate term should be "Man All Over You"), you are bound to detect some tampering.