Why should we expect these activists to be any more computer illiterate than jihadists? We know they use PGP and Tor and steganography. Why not political activists?
Those who assault young children or the elderly are condoned by the government. If you attempt to defend your family from the TSA, you will be arrested. What else do you need to know before you call them thugs?
When it comes to the government, vitriol is usually the most accurate language we can use.
Nearly everybody thinks that at least some kind of security measures are necessary for airplanes.
Yes, and we had some kind of security measures for decades before 9/11. Let's go back to that. The only security measures we need to take to address the problems that lead to 9/11 are 1) locking the cockpit door, and 2) tell passengers to fight back against hijackers. That's it.
The TSA has already killed more people than Al Qaeda has, by encouraging them to drive instead of fly. Why shouldn't they be treated as anything other than terrorists?
Anonymity is valued by the participants, who often exchange contact information under pseudonyms. Crytographically signing things means verifying the participants identity
You don't have to completely identify yourself to get a benefit from cryptographic signatures. All you really need to know is that the Ahmed you corresponded with today is the same Ahmed you corresponded with last week. To do that, all you need to know is that the key used today is the same key that was used last week. This trivial precaution would have protected against this attack.
These guys aren't anonymous, they're pseudonymous. The key can be their pseudonym without compromising their actual identity in any way.
That's all well and good to say but ignores the reality of how these dissident mvements work in these third world countries.
The reality is that they're not educated enough to do it. There's no reason they couldn't be educated, if someone decided it was worthwhile. In cost benefit terms, it's absolutely worthwhile. So all that's needed is for the resistence to realize that and do some work.
And just because something is cryptographically signed doesn't mean it's trustworthy. Whose to say the government doesn't have forged certs?
This is a good point. The Syrian government could easily have acquired his private key when they arrested him, and beaten his passphrase out of him. To protect against that, they need a revocation certificate sent on a dead mans switch.
These people are rag tag groups of people who meet up online, not cryptographic specialists.
If your life depends on it, you think you'd take the time to figure out what you can do to protect yourself.
When the file comes from a trusted source, it's not stupid. You have to trust someone eventually
"Skype" isn't a trusted source. If you're dealing with a government that's out to get you, anything that isn't cryptographically signed is untrusted. Assume everything is untrusted until it's verifiably trustable.
Exactly. Because of MAD, missle "defense" is actually an offensive strategy. Effective missile defense makes a first strike possible, where mutually assured destruction does not.
If you don't intend to commit the first strike, there's no reason to build missile defenses. No one is going to attack us, because we can destroy them easily if they did. The only possible application of missile defense is to enable us to make the first strike, and defend against retaliation.
Javascript is a client-side scripting language that allows us to modify the DOM (the visible webpage) and make API calls to get data. Without it, there is a hell of lot we just simply cannot do anymore.
None of which we actually need to do. The web is simply a better experience when you block javascript. It's not actually useful for anything that wouldn't be better done client/server or as a compiled native application. For example, I still haven't found a web forum anywhere that is anywhere near as nice to use as a USENET client was.
Keep in mind, some of that pretty makes it fairly damned functional by creating UI that are not possible with server side only implementations.
Such as? I have never met a site that wasn't improved by turning off javascript, except for those that were deliberately crippled into requiring javascript.
Whether you like it or not we are going to continue moving towards browsers being merely dynamic front ends for applications and that simply requires client side code. Period.
That doesn't make it a good idea. The internet will continue to regress, and there's nothing I can do about it. That's true, but it's still a regression.
There's no netflix for classic video games. Until I can hop on the cloud and download an ISO of whatever PC Engine game I happen to want to play today, I'm going to have to keep the TOSEC on my hard disk.
If you really think your success in life hinges on your ability to convince other people of your worth, you've already failed at life. Personal satisfaction comes from within.
You can choose to fight on the naming of a piece of software based on your assertion that it's only offensive to people who want to be offended
Offense is always a choice on the part of the offended. Maybe they should pick their battles.
Do you really want that to be the impediment that stops one of the best examples of free and open source software from being more widely adopted? Is it really that important to you? Where do your priorities lie?
As long as the software is good, it doesn't matter. Those who choose not to use it based on the name are missing out. The developers lose nothing if they don't use it.
If it was really such a big deal, why hasn't GIMP forked yet? Just do with GIMP what Debian has done with Iceweasel and you're good to go. The fact that this hasn't happened yet indicates that people aren't really serious about their objection to the name.
The speaker doesn't get to decide whether his words are offensive. That's up to the listeners. If it's well known that a word is deemed by many to be offensive, the speaker ought to at least attempt to be respectful of that, even if he doesn't agree. To do otherwise seems anti-social, antagonistic, a jerk... pick one.
Maybe the speaker's a jerk. Maybe the listener is a whining crybaby.
What about Iceweasel? It's not a fork, it's Firefox with the trademarkes replaced. Where Firefox goes, so goes Iceweasel.
What Firefox should do is go UI agnostic. Just focus on rendering HTML, and publish an API for front end designers. That way anyone could make Firefox look however they want without giving up features.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should we expect these activists to be any more computer illiterate than jihadists? We know they use PGP and Tor and steganography. Why not political activists?
Those who assault young children or the elderly are condoned by the government. If you attempt to defend your family from the TSA, you will be arrested. What else do you need to know before you call them thugs?
When it comes to the government, vitriol is usually the most accurate language we can use.
Nearly everybody thinks that at least some kind of security measures are necessary for airplanes.
Yes, and we had some kind of security measures for decades before 9/11. Let's go back to that. The only security measures we need to take to address the problems that lead to 9/11 are 1) locking the cockpit door, and 2) tell passengers to fight back against hijackers. That's it.
The TSA has already killed more people than Al Qaeda has, by encouraging them to drive instead of fly. Why shouldn't they be treated as anything other than terrorists?
All cryptography does is compromise your anonymity.
Really? So if I post a private key in this thread, and you encrypt your response with that key, how does that compromise either of our anonymity?
Anonymity is valued by the participants, who often exchange contact information under pseudonyms. Crytographically signing things means verifying the participants identity
You don't have to completely identify yourself to get a benefit from cryptographic signatures. All you really need to know is that the Ahmed you corresponded with today is the same Ahmed you corresponded with last week. To do that, all you need to know is that the key used today is the same key that was used last week. This trivial precaution would have protected against this attack.
These guys aren't anonymous, they're pseudonymous. The key can be their pseudonym without compromising their actual identity in any way.
That's all well and good to say but ignores the reality of how these dissident mvements work in these third world countries.
The reality is that they're not educated enough to do it. There's no reason they couldn't be educated, if someone decided it was worthwhile. In cost benefit terms, it's absolutely worthwhile. So all that's needed is for the resistence to realize that and do some work.
And just because something is cryptographically signed doesn't mean it's trustworthy. Whose to say the government doesn't have forged certs?
This is a good point. The Syrian government could easily have acquired his private key when they arrested him, and beaten his passphrase out of him. To protect against that, they need a revocation certificate sent on a dead mans switch.
These people are rag tag groups of people who meet up online, not cryptographic specialists.
If your life depends on it, you think you'd take the time to figure out what you can do to protect yourself.
When the file comes from a trusted source, it's not stupid. You have to trust someone eventually
"Skype" isn't a trusted source. If you're dealing with a government that's out to get you, anything that isn't cryptographically signed is untrusted. Assume everything is untrusted until it's verifiably trustable.
We should make fun of Microsoft whenever they lack a feature that Linux users get for free.
Why not sue Elop himself?
Theism and Atheism make ontological statements about the existence resp. nonexistence of deities.
No, atheism doesn't. There are no gnostic atheists.
Exactly. Because of MAD, missle "defense" is actually an offensive strategy. Effective missile defense makes a first strike possible, where mutually assured destruction does not.
If you don't intend to commit the first strike, there's no reason to build missile defenses. No one is going to attack us, because we can destroy them easily if they did. The only possible application of missile defense is to enable us to make the first strike, and defend against retaliation.
Javascript is a client-side scripting language that allows us to modify the DOM (the visible webpage) and make API calls to get data. Without it, there is a hell of lot we just simply cannot do anymore.
None of which we actually need to do. The web is simply a better experience when you block javascript. It's not actually useful for anything that wouldn't be better done client/server or as a compiled native application. For example, I still haven't found a web forum anywhere that is anywhere near as nice to use as a USENET client was.
Keep in mind, some of that pretty makes it fairly damned functional by creating UI that are not possible with server side only implementations.
Such as? I have never met a site that wasn't improved by turning off javascript, except for those that were deliberately crippled into requiring javascript.
Whether you like it or not we are going to continue moving towards browsers being merely dynamic front ends for applications and that simply requires client side code. Period.
That doesn't make it a good idea. The internet will continue to regress, and there's nothing I can do about it. That's true, but it's still a regression.
Another is that cannabis reduces the critical faculty, making it more difficult to distinguish good ideas from poor ideas
So what are the drug warriors on that makes them think prohibition is a good idea?
That's what I was going to suggest, if I could have remembered the name. Greyhole. heh
There's no netflix for classic video games. Until I can hop on the cloud and download an ISO of whatever PC Engine game I happen to want to play today, I'm going to have to keep the TOSEC on my hard disk.
Cannabis causes poverty? That's a new one. Persecution of cannabis users, now that might cause poverty.
If you really think your success in life hinges on your ability to convince other people of your worth, you've already failed at life. Personal satisfaction comes from within.
Notice how there's still no evidence that Cannabis causes brain damage.
Just further proof that the US is an authoritarian regime.
You can choose to fight on the naming of a piece of software based on your assertion that it's only offensive to people who want to be offended
Offense is always a choice on the part of the offended. Maybe they should pick their battles.
Do you really want that to be the impediment that stops one of the best examples of free and open source software from being more widely adopted? Is it really that important to you? Where do your priorities lie?
As long as the software is good, it doesn't matter. Those who choose not to use it based on the name are missing out. The developers lose nothing if they don't use it.
If it was really such a big deal, why hasn't GIMP forked yet? Just do with GIMP what Debian has done with Iceweasel and you're good to go. The fact that this hasn't happened yet indicates that people aren't really serious about their objection to the name.
In other words, it speaks volumes about the marketing ability of geeks
Marketing is evil. The lack of marketing ability on the part of geeks is one of their greatest strengths. If you can't deal with that, it's your loss.
The speaker doesn't get to decide whether his words are offensive. That's up to the listeners. If it's well known that a word is deemed by many to be offensive, the speaker ought to at least attempt to be respectful of that, even if he doesn't agree. To do otherwise seems anti-social, antagonistic, a jerk... pick one.
Maybe the speaker's a jerk. Maybe the listener is a whining crybaby.
Boo hoo. If you can't get over the name, it's pretty clear who is the childish one.
I just pass Samba the 'domain' option in my fstab to mount shares and ignore the rest of the AD crap.
What about Iceweasel? It's not a fork, it's Firefox with the trademarkes replaced. Where Firefox goes, so goes Iceweasel.
What Firefox should do is go UI agnostic. Just focus on rendering HTML, and publish an API for front end designers. That way anyone could make Firefox look however they want without giving up features.