MiTM doesn't work against https unless the users are accepting bad certs already. If the page you're looking at was sent over https, its not alterable to include malicious javascript en-route. Someone on the network doesn't have your key, and so they can't spoof a request to take advantage of persistent https connections. XSS is dependent on your users looking at each others data and you not filtering it well. So unless your server or client are already owned (at which point this doesn't matter), or your users are randomly accepting bad certs (at which point it still doesn't matter), the only vector is a pre-existing unpatched XSS vulnerability on one of the servers https pages. (right?)
...to know that operation critical hardware could fail because it's a knock-off and poorly manufactured...
...or it could fail because its designed to fail at exactly the right time, in the right way. That our infrastructure and military hardware contain so many parts from China has to be one of their best strategic advantages in any conflict we might have. They would be silly not to try and use that.
Within 3 years of release from prison: 3.3% of child molesters were rearrested for molestation 2.2% of non-molester sex offenders were rearrested for molestation 0.4% of the entire set of released criminals were rearrested for molestation
43% of sex offenders were rearrested in total (any criminal charge) 68% of non-sex offenders were rearrested in total (any criminal charge)
In general you can fairly say offender type X is more likely than other criminals to recommit crime type X, but overall its a misconception to believe that sex offenders re-molest frequently or that they are rearrested more often than other criminals.
The scale of the threat is the issue. Traditional bombings suck but you can deal with them. Nuclear/Chemical/Biological attacks are much more critical to stop, as they can be society ending. From what we've been told today's terrorists are aiming for those types of attacks. We have to prevent a much higher percentage of those types of attacks for society to survive. I'm not saying it justifies everything they're doing, but it does justify an extra level of vigilance over a steady stream of car bombings.
The premise of the article is that robots are producing massive amounts of goods, and that the majority of country will see a reduction in buying power. This is the basic recipe for deflation on a huge scale. Given that, while giving $25,000 to everyone will create large inflationary trends, it should be offset by the deflationary environment created by the robots. (ie: no $500 bread)
If you accept that you don't need your country to advance anymore, and machines are covering the basics for you then you might decide you don't need a system that gives people proper incentive to work or take risks. Communism fits that bill pretty well. It doomed the Russians, but they were at a point where they needed to compete (with the US) to survive, and obviously their basic needs weren't being met by technology. If you could get to a point where there was no need to compete or advance and all your basic needs were met then Communism might just get you by.
On the other hand, from that point forward your nation would not advance at any meaningful rate. No incentive, no invention, no advancement. This system takes away the primary driver for all new and cool things. Necessity.
If you read the RFP there are two types of deployment: Force Protection (FP) and Military Operation Urban Terrain (MOUT). In FP configuration you own the territory and don't need to ask permission. MOUT is more difficult, but also from the RFP:
...Offerors should identify their choices and rational for sensors and deployment options for use by mobile forces to screen a flank or surveil a critical route. Examples include traditional surveillance cameras, small, portable, and possibly mobile self-contained surveillance devices; video sensors mounted on organic aerial vehicles, and 'video ropes'...
So it sounds like the intent is to be able to do this in denied areas using their own sensors, possibly at distance.
Slashdot Mirror
MiTM doesn't work against https unless the users are accepting bad certs already. If the page you're looking at was sent over https, its not alterable to include malicious javascript en-route. Someone on the network doesn't have your key, and so they can't spoof a request to take advantage of persistent https connections. XSS is dependent on your users looking at each others data and you not filtering it well. So unless your server or client are already owned (at which point this doesn't matter), or your users are randomly accepting bad certs (at which point it still doesn't matter), the only vector is a pre-existing unpatched XSS vulnerability on one of the servers https pages. (right?)
...to know that operation critical hardware could fail because it's a knock-off and poorly manufactured...
...or it could fail because its designed to fail at exactly the right time, in the right way. That our infrastructure and military hardware contain so many parts from China has to be one of their best strategic advantages in any conflict we might have. They would be silly not to try and use that.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm
Within 3 years of release from prison:
3.3% of child molesters were rearrested for molestation
2.2% of non-molester sex offenders were rearrested for molestation
0.4% of the entire set of released criminals were rearrested for molestation
43% of sex offenders were rearrested in total (any criminal charge)
68% of non-sex offenders were rearrested in total (any criminal charge)
In general you can fairly say offender type X is more likely than other criminals to recommit crime type X, but overall its a misconception to believe that sex offenders re-molest frequently or that they are rearrested more often than other criminals.
Looking for my cookie...
Wouldn't the Unclean Hands Doctrine apply to this case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands
The scale of the threat is the issue. Traditional bombings suck but you can deal with them. Nuclear/Chemical/Biological attacks are much more critical to stop, as they can be society ending. From what we've been told today's terrorists are aiming for those types of attacks. We have to prevent a much higher percentage of those types of attacks for society to survive. I'm not saying it justifies everything they're doing, but it does justify an extra level of vigilance over a steady stream of car bombings.
The premise of the article is that robots are producing massive amounts of goods, and that the majority of country will see a reduction in buying power. This is the basic recipe for deflation on a huge scale. Given that, while giving $25,000 to everyone will create large inflationary trends, it should be offset by the deflationary environment created by the robots. (ie: no $500 bread)
If you accept that you don't need your country to advance anymore, and machines are covering the basics for you then you might decide you don't need a system that gives people proper incentive to work or take risks. Communism fits that bill pretty well. It doomed the Russians, but they were at a point where they needed to compete (with the US) to survive, and obviously their basic needs weren't being met by technology. If you could get to a point where there was no need to compete or advance and all your basic needs were met then Communism might just get you by.
On the other hand, from that point forward your nation would not advance at any meaningful rate. No incentive, no invention, no advancement. This system takes away the primary driver for all new and cool things. Necessity.
If you read the RFP there are two types of deployment: Force Protection (FP) and Military Operation Urban Terrain (MOUT). In FP configuration you own the territory and don't need to ask permission. MOUT is more difficult, but also from the RFP:
...Offerors should identify their choices and rational for sensors and deployment options for use by mobile forces to screen a flank or surveil a critical route. Examples include traditional surveillance cameras, small, portable, and possibly mobile self-contained surveillance devices; video sensors mounted on organic aerial vehicles, and 'video ropes'...
So it sounds like the intent is to be able to do this in denied areas using their own sensors, possibly at distance.