When I was in the Navy, we had equipment to destroy classified (paper) material onboard the ship. I always wondered what the logic in equipment selection was, but there were certain approved ways of destroying classified materials based on classification. Lower levels of classification could be disposed through this garbage disposal like thing that had sea water running through it. Next level up was an JP-5 fueled incinerator, and for the highest level was a mechanical shredder that would turn paper into the finest powder.
What if someone just wants to have a 'supplemental' income? Offering services or selling small items of some sort. Bitcoin would present a great way for these people to avoid taxes, which is the goal of many people involved in such activities. The higher the tax rates, the more difficult it is to transfer from bitcoin to USD, the more likely that people will begin operating exclusively in Bitcoin. Rest assured, if people begin amassing wealth in the form of bitcoins, a market priced in bitcoins will develop.
Bitcoin is not easy to trace when it is not linked to something like a bank account transaction. It has to be linked to delivery of goods, but the problem here is that receiving a delivery is not evidence of a crime. There has to be evidence that the person receiving the goods also paid for them.
I can't see Schneier as a Libertarian since he states in the article that "Fixing this requires strong government will...". No Libertarian would suggest such a fix, which I imply to mean that this issue goes beyond Libertarians.
We can turn our cell phones off and spend cash. But increasingly, none of it matters
I agree with this because people traveling without cell phones and paying cash tend to be the minority, meaning that anonymizing efforts often end up doing the opposite. Another good quote from the article:
If the director of the CIA can't maintain his privacy on the Internet, we've got no hope
I think there is more to the demographics than he mentioned. Quite likely that younger generation will only know the Blendtec brand (versus other brands of blenders), so when they are older and equipping their own kitchens they will purchase a Blendtec, possibly most especially the ones that did not manage to convince their parents to purchase one.
War powers were probably the most discussed topic in the debates over the Constitution. A declaration of war entails many different things, but as far as rights go, it gives the President totalitarian control over the war zone. The war zone is to be defined by Congress stating specific geographical areas. Congress has not done a declaration of war. The Constitution defines what the Government can do, and so far as I know, the limitations placed on it have no basis in political boundaries (the amendments, as well as the document, always apply).
These things are being used to confuse the issue. What Paul is asking for is a clear statement that drones will not be used to single out and kill targets, because this is how the drone program is actually being employed. There is a reason that 92% of Pakistanis don't like the U.S. government flying drones over their country. That's why if you watch C-Span, you'll see them mentioning over and over killing families sleeping at night or eating dinner. In fact, it's the issue that he discussed the most in the early hours, which is the confusion between imminent threat and immediate threat. An imminent threat that is not an immediate threat should be arrested, not obliterated.
Says the whit middle class kid. You know why they don't talk to cops in inner-city areas? Because cops are everyone's enemy. They harm both victims and perpetrators. They are only there to arrest, and if you call the cops, they immediately suspect you of a crime, because, after all, why did you snitch on that guy? Why did that guy want to harm you? What are you hiding? I think I smell pot in your apartment...
I maintain home networks for a few friends, and based on my experience few people see any increased utility beyond 10 mbps down and 2 mbps up. A lot of tech type people get irritated that companies charge based on bandwidth, but the fact is that is how their providers, such as Level 3, charge them. It's an infrastructure issue, and it works in reverse, too - if you serve a website, you usually pay per GB served, unless the server is a shared server, where you will be limited by the performance of the server. Someone has to pay for the equipment and the resources to support the infrastructure, and from what I can tell, most proponents of high bandwidth options also support lots of free stuff, which is not sustainable.
Spoofing a MAC address is trivial. You can do it in your network settings in Windows, and every router I've ever used gives the option. Finding a whitelisted MAC address is likely trivial for the hacker in this article (who broke in through WPS - much harder) because the MAC address is broadcast in the clear, so packet inspection will reveal the whitelisted MAC addresses. IP whitelists are also worthless.
The person needs to disable WPS and verify that the router is capable of disabling WPS completely. Some routers do not actually disable the WPS function when WPS is disable. Security experts consider WPS to be completely broken.
Clearly you do not have someone trying to leech your network, or you are not able to detect such a user. MAC addresses are broadcast in the clear. This is because otherwise every device on the network would have to decrypt every single packet in order to determine whether or not the device is the intended recipient of the packet. All the attacker has to do inspect a packet, find the MAC address, then spoof that MAC address.
WiFi Protected Setup (WPS) is broken, and on many routers it cannot be fixed without disabling WiFi completely. Even a 64-character, high entropy password on WPA2 AES will not work. This is the problem faced by the poster of the article.
In my mind, the best solution is high entropy, long password, WPA2-AES with a router that does not have WPS or is known to be able to safely disable WPS (such as latest versions of DD-WRT).
"The few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons." - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
And, by extension, participation in the legal system.
It's all relative. Compare how working class people in 1914 lived with those in 1814. In the early 19th century the U.S. was a developing nation. Early 20th century the U.S. was the world's largest manufacturer. Early 21st century and the U.S. is no longer the world's largest manufacturer. The reason you cannot have a central bank and capitalism is because the bank very broadly distorts capital markets, especially financial markets. The arbitrary setting of interest rates makes it impossible for markets to function properly so we get the malinvestment bubbles and subsequent crashes. It is worse than almost any other form of regulation.
I never understood this. For the iPod they had several models that even came in different colors, but for some reason on their phone there can be only one.
We haven't had capitalism since 1913 - you can't have capitalism and a central bank. I've been to China many times, visited many factories, and haven't seen any slaves.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was in the Navy, we had equipment to destroy classified (paper) material onboard the ship. I always wondered what the logic in equipment selection was, but there were certain approved ways of destroying classified materials based on classification. Lower levels of classification could be disposed through this garbage disposal like thing that had sea water running through it. Next level up was an JP-5 fueled incinerator, and for the highest level was a mechanical shredder that would turn paper into the finest powder.
What if someone just wants to have a 'supplemental' income? Offering services or selling small items of some sort. Bitcoin would present a great way for these people to avoid taxes, which is the goal of many people involved in such activities. The higher the tax rates, the more difficult it is to transfer from bitcoin to USD, the more likely that people will begin operating exclusively in Bitcoin. Rest assured, if people begin amassing wealth in the form of bitcoins, a market priced in bitcoins will develop.
Unless they don't use conventional currency at all. They get paid in bitcoins, and they spend bitcoins.
Many days, I don't understand the mods.
Napster was a wake-up call for the politicians, who acted quickly to squash piracy, thus our piracy-free Internet.
Bitcoin is not easy to trace when it is not linked to something like a bank account transaction. It has to be linked to delivery of goods, but the problem here is that receiving a delivery is not evidence of a crime. There has to be evidence that the person receiving the goods also paid for them.
I can't see Schneier as a Libertarian since he states in the article that "Fixing this requires strong government will...". No Libertarian would suggest such a fix, which I imply to mean that this issue goes beyond Libertarians.
I agree with this because people traveling without cell phones and paying cash tend to be the minority, meaning that anonymizing efforts often end up doing the opposite. Another good quote from the article:
I think there is more to the demographics than he mentioned. Quite likely that younger generation will only know the Blendtec brand (versus other brands of blenders), so when they are older and equipping their own kitchens they will purchase a Blendtec, possibly most especially the ones that did not manage to convince their parents to purchase one.
War powers were probably the most discussed topic in the debates over the Constitution. A declaration of war entails many different things, but as far as rights go, it gives the President totalitarian control over the war zone. The war zone is to be defined by Congress stating specific geographical areas. Congress has not done a declaration of war. The Constitution defines what the Government can do, and so far as I know, the limitations placed on it have no basis in political boundaries (the amendments, as well as the document, always apply).
These things are being used to confuse the issue. What Paul is asking for is a clear statement that drones will not be used to single out and kill targets, because this is how the drone program is actually being employed. There is a reason that 92% of Pakistanis don't like the U.S. government flying drones over their country. That's why if you watch C-Span, you'll see them mentioning over and over killing families sleeping at night or eating dinner. In fact, it's the issue that he discussed the most in the early hours, which is the confusion between imminent threat and immediate threat. An imminent threat that is not an immediate threat should be arrested, not obliterated.
Says the whit middle class kid. You know why they don't talk to cops in inner-city areas? Because cops are everyone's enemy. They harm both victims and perpetrators. They are only there to arrest, and if you call the cops, they immediately suspect you of a crime, because, after all, why did you snitch on that guy? Why did that guy want to harm you? What are you hiding? I think I smell pot in your apartment...
I maintain home networks for a few friends, and based on my experience few people see any increased utility beyond 10 mbps down and 2 mbps up. A lot of tech type people get irritated that companies charge based on bandwidth, but the fact is that is how their providers, such as Level 3, charge them. It's an infrastructure issue, and it works in reverse, too - if you serve a website, you usually pay per GB served, unless the server is a shared server, where you will be limited by the performance of the server. Someone has to pay for the equipment and the resources to support the infrastructure, and from what I can tell, most proponents of high bandwidth options also support lots of free stuff, which is not sustainable.
Given the level of technical ability this individual appears to have exhibited a MAC whitelist probably wouldn't help.
I am addressing the issues described in the article. The rest of your post seems to apply to some other article.
Spoofing a MAC address is trivial. You can do it in your network settings in Windows, and every router I've ever used gives the option. Finding a whitelisted MAC address is likely trivial for the hacker in this article (who broke in through WPS - much harder) because the MAC address is broadcast in the clear, so packet inspection will reveal the whitelisted MAC addresses. IP whitelists are also worthless.
Slashdot mods have no fucking clue about WiFi security.
The person needs to disable WPS and verify that the router is capable of disabling WPS completely. Some routers do not actually disable the WPS function when WPS is disable. Security experts consider WPS to be completely broken.
Clearly you do not have someone trying to leech your network, or you are not able to detect such a user. MAC addresses are broadcast in the clear. This is because otherwise every device on the network would have to decrypt every single packet in order to determine whether or not the device is the intended recipient of the packet. All the attacker has to do inspect a packet, find the MAC address, then spoof that MAC address.
WiFi Protected Setup (WPS) is broken, and on many routers it cannot be fixed without disabling WiFi completely. Even a 64-character, high entropy password on WPA2 AES will not work. This is the problem faced by the poster of the article.
In my mind, the best solution is high entropy, long password, WPA2-AES with a router that does not have WPS or is known to be able to safely disable WPS (such as latest versions of DD-WRT).
"The few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons." - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
And, by extension, participation in the legal system.
Has something been done to reduce bluetooth device power consumption? Otherwise it's going to make for a large, geeky watch.
It's all relative. Compare how working class people in 1914 lived with those in 1814. In the early 19th century the U.S. was a developing nation. Early 20th century the U.S. was the world's largest manufacturer. Early 21st century and the U.S. is no longer the world's largest manufacturer. The reason you cannot have a central bank and capitalism is because the bank very broadly distorts capital markets, especially financial markets. The arbitrary setting of interest rates makes it impossible for markets to function properly so we get the malinvestment bubbles and subsequent crashes. It is worse than almost any other form of regulation.
The U.S. never ceased practicing mercantilism with regards to sugar.
I never understood this. For the iPod they had several models that even came in different colors, but for some reason on their phone there can be only one.
Every BlackBerry I've owned does all that, which is why I think neither of the leaders bothered. "Hey, it's not helping them sell phones."
We haven't had capitalism since 1913 - you can't have capitalism and a central bank. I've been to China many times, visited many factories, and haven't seen any slaves.