MS and Apple were already suing Google. The value of these patents to Google was to prevent further lawsuits and have MAD defuse a number of the existing ones.
It's not bias. The usage of 'weapon', which only occurs once in the title, is to indicate that it is useful in a conflict. You will find lots of results for 'weapon against identity theft' in a Google search. The usage of bullet is an accurate description of what this is. It seems to me that you are the one with the very strong bias.
It can't be encrypted at all times if a normal client is able to view it. It was merely encrypted at rest, with a single encryption/decryption key stored on the same server.
I believe the clients held the keys and actual messages were decrypted client-side. If you know of a service that offered close to the same thing with better practices, please mention it.
Assuming every corner of the government was in on it. Most of those people are just doing their jobs. Trails of bodies tend to attract attention
Not every corner. The only parties that would have to be in on this are part of the FBI and the NSA, which isn't unthinkable. Trails of bodies do tend to attract attention, although we aren't talking about a huge number of people, and we've already got a good bit of attention, and they can just throw down a scapegoat or two. There's also the somewhat less unseemly task of trying to get ahead of the leaks and do damage control. They've tried to do that, but failed pretty miserably, with almost every statement being followed by evidence that everything they just said was a bald-faced lie.
We are talking about the genius who, upon deciding to commit treason, used an account with his name on it - not even an alias.
So either he's incredibly stupid, or incredibly intelligent. It would be incredibly intelligent to save your ass from the fire by making yourself appear to be a folk hero.
His communications were with a reporter he trusted deeply and believed to be secure in her practices. Furthermore, he didn't consider his actions treasonous.
And no, it wouldn't be incredibly intelligent to be publicly visible if you were engaged in delivering state secrets to an enemy. He would be under less investigation if he were more quiet. Your theory is a completely wild shot in the dark to try and justify this witch hunt.
Well - public/private key encryption comes to mind. Your users would just need a local client, either plugged into a fat client, run as Java (like the CA provider), or using opengpg's javascript or Chrome plugins. The solutions exist, Lavabit just created an overly complex 'paper shuffling' process to hide the fact it's not really secure.
I believe the content of the email was encrypted at all times. But a mail server has to have information on sending and receiving the mail. so not all data can be encrypted by the user's key.
So what's the problem with providing account information and log data for a single account, requested by court order? If Snowden's a whistleblower, then there's nothing to be afraid of. If he's sending highly classified data to the Russians... uhm, my age is showing... Chinese, and using 'whistleblower' as a cover for his actions, then we have a problem. That's not Ladar's call to make. That's why there are professional investigators involved, a 'Federal Bureau', as it were.
It's a problem when all of the reporters on that list end up going missing a short time afterwards. You are fra too trusting of the government here. Think of this situation like it were reversed, and a Russian or Chinese operative was exposing their dirty laundry to the world in the US. Think of the things that these regimes would do. Now, realize that the US would do all of the same things if they could manage to keep it quiet.
Also, the theory that he was very publicly a whistleblower as a cover to give foreign governments intel is ridiculous. That's about the worst way to try and accomplish that.
'Clearly'. I disagree. He was being an ass, and the operation didn't have the security he touted in the first place - it's like buying a lockbox at a bank, but giving your stuff to the teller to put in the box. That's not secure.
The system was about as secure as an email service you don't personally host can be, at least as far as the general model goes.
As an email service provider, I can attest these orders are not executed by the NSA, they're part of investigations performed by the FBI. They DO NOT want any more info than is listed on the court order. Are you kidding me? Using evidence gained illegally as part of a prosecution? A defense lawyer would have a field day with that.
They were searching for information on Snowden. They weren't looking for information for a trial. They were trying to find out who he was in contact and exactly what he had so they could control the situation.
Reading a little bit further into the docs, it would appear that they initially wanted a bit more access than he was comfortable giving. They wouldn't let him just give the info after 60 days and wanted a trace device that would let them intercept information unencrypted in real time. The court order only gave them permission to intercept certain information, but they would have had access to much more, and it would have compromised the security of their entire operation. Given the information we have available right now about US spy agencies' utter disrespect for the rule of law, he clearly made the right choice.
The problem is that you don't get to pick when what you view as a "credible" enemy shows up. If you compromise security ahead of time, its too late when it does show up.
You actually can to quite a bit. Nazi Germany was largely the result of the Treaty of Versailles. Pearl Harbor was the result of us not being neutral in the war, and it wasn't hard to see something along those lines coming. Most terrorist acts in the last 50 years could be tracked to US dickery of some form or another if you are willing to put in a bit of work.
There also seems to be evidence that the Russians didn't know everything since they are makings some adjustments based on Snowden's revelations [smh.com.au]. If they knew it all before, they would have done it before. Snowden provided them a blueprint they could access, as well as the operational methods. And they won't have the constraints of the US Constitution to inhibit them.
They announced a change in policy. That doesn't mean there actually was a change in policy, or that it was due to changes in knowledge. At best, it was an opportunity to act upon knowledge that has now become public but was already private. How naive are you?
The security needs of the US and UK require signals intelligence of one sort or another.
Perhaps, but not anywhere near as much as it needs us to stop being assholes. Not being assholes will do far more for our safety. And signals intelligence often ends up creating threats, and is used as a crutch that allows for poor human intelligence, which is already inept enough.
Yes, the Enigma machine was a big achievement, and keeping that a secret was operationally important at the time. The UK was engaged in a real war with a real enemy that was a real threat. All we have now is sabre-rattling pissing contests, industrial espionage that only benefits corporate benefactors and other cronies, and the specter of 'terrorism', which isn't significantly greater now than at any other point in recent history, and certainly not for the UK.
Perhaps some of that information Snowden had is useful to credible threats to the security of the US or the UK. Here's the bad news: those credible threats already had that information, because the NSA has horrible internal security. Spy agencies have largely been bumbling morons, more closely resembling Maxwell Smart than James Bond, as a Beeb article pointed out. The degree of access Snowden had and even his admission into the agency were the result of the agency being incredibly inept. So, anything Snowden was able to get his hands on, Russia, China, Al Queda, Cobra Command, and the American Dental Association have all known for years. If you want to improve national security, shutting down and demolishing the NSA and GCHQ would be the best step to take.
The government of the UK CLAIMS is has suffered enormous damage to its security. That doesn't mean they actually think that to be the case. There's this behavior known as 'lying', and government have done this in the past, especially when dirty laundry has been exposed.
Do you have a source on that? IIRC, they have agreed to install 'pen register' devices in the past. Those provide no useful information for users of their paid accounts because it is all encrypted. They even eventually provided the SSL key, albeit in a very spiteful manner.
You are correct that the details of the whole situation are not all out yet, but when everything comes to light, it's usually the authoritarian governments acting in the shadows that come out as the bad guys. With the given evidence out so far, the level needed to justify everything they've done would have to be that they know of a serious threat to all life on Earth, and said threat could come from anywhere, likely involving leaders of other world governments. Anything short of that would mean that the NSA should be taken down.
You are making an inaccurate statement. The single pot plant is under federal jurisdiction because it might affect the PRICE of pot in other states, thus making it 'interstate commerce.' It's actually a little worse IMO than the situation you describe. But that was actually one of the cases I was thinking of in regards to SCOTUS ruling with very broad interpretations.
I'm not sure that it would meet that. It is an odd approach, but the third amendment is largely ignored, so there isn't a great deal of precedent on it.
While I agree that Congress would be the ideal vehicle, SCOTUS could and should shoot this kind of bullshit down, since these acts are not constitutional.
It is grasping at straws, but FBI agents often do carry guns, this was a privately owned business, and like I said before, SCOTUS has ruled very broadly on their interpretations of the enumerated powers, so it would only be fair to rule as broadly on the Bill of Rights. It probably won't make it that far, unforunately. There are better grounds that have a better chance, but we've given up on liberty if you can throw the words 'national security' in.
There is no such thing as 'access to a few accounts' in their model. And the feds weren't involved in a legitamite operation anyway. They were trying to track down someone who had exposed their crimes.
Except for the fact that they couldn't do that by virtue of the site's design. As another article explained on/. explained, that design choice was good security practice because the government exploiting you is not any different technologically than any other insider attack. The problem is that the NSA got exposed, and they got pissed. The answer was to nuke the NSA from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I'd say it's a fair bet that they only got copyright trolls and such to bite. So, this troll was probably only getting the names of MPAA agents and the like.
The economy of my perfect world would be more or less Star Trek, in which the means of production far outclass material want, so the overwhelming majority of actions are taken for the purpose of self-impovement, not 'making a living.'
In regards to the ideal economics that are more bound to our current reality, I would still prefer to not have copyright. It was originally a means of censorship to protect kings and churches against heretical works spreading. Eventually, it became more about a powerful guild of publishers trying to maintain a legal monopoly, and they halfway got their wish with the Statute of Anne, which was claimed to be an act for the 'Encouragement of Learning.' Such a goal is the only justifiable reason for copyright, and the evidence that such a thing happened is incredibly weak. Copyright holders have consistently taken Luddite positions on any technology that could potentially upset their revenue model.
He's saying that the prisoners themselves would make the money. Instead of running drug cartels, they would be running legitimate construction companies.
Slashdot Mirror
MS and Apple were already suing Google. The value of these patents to Google was to prevent further lawsuits and have MAD defuse a number of the existing ones.
It's not bias. The usage of 'weapon', which only occurs once in the title, is to indicate that it is useful in a conflict. You will find lots of results for 'weapon against identity theft' in a Google search. The usage of bullet is an accurate description of what this is. It seems to me that you are the one with the very strong bias.
I don't. Their source code would be better off in the hands of just about anybody else, including monkeys with typewriters.
I believe the clients held the keys and actual messages were decrypted client-side. If you know of a service that offered close to the same thing with better practices, please mention it.
Not every corner. The only parties that would have to be in on this are part of the FBI and the NSA, which isn't unthinkable. Trails of bodies do tend to attract attention, although we aren't talking about a huge number of people, and we've already got a good bit of attention, and they can just throw down a scapegoat or two. There's also the somewhat less unseemly task of trying to get ahead of the leaks and do damage control. They've tried to do that, but failed pretty miserably, with almost every statement being followed by evidence that everything they just said was a bald-faced lie.
His communications were with a reporter he trusted deeply and believed to be secure in her practices. Furthermore, he didn't consider his actions treasonous.
And no, it wouldn't be incredibly intelligent to be publicly visible if you were engaged in delivering state secrets to an enemy. He would be under less investigation if he were more quiet. Your theory is a completely wild shot in the dark to try and justify this witch hunt.
I believe the content of the email was encrypted at all times. But a mail server has to have information on sending and receiving the mail. so not all data can be encrypted by the user's key.
It's a problem when all of the reporters on that list end up going missing a short time afterwards. You are fra too trusting of the government here. Think of this situation like it were reversed, and a Russian or Chinese operative was exposing their dirty laundry to the world in the US. Think of the things that these regimes would do. Now, realize that the US would do all of the same things if they could manage to keep it quiet.
Also, the theory that he was very publicly a whistleblower as a cover to give foreign governments intel is ridiculous. That's about the worst way to try and accomplish that.
The system was about as secure as an email service you don't personally host can be, at least as far as the general model goes.
They were searching for information on Snowden. They weren't looking for information for a trial. They were trying to find out who he was in contact and exactly what he had so they could control the situation.
Reading a little bit further into the docs, it would appear that they initially wanted a bit more access than he was comfortable giving. They wouldn't let him just give the info after 60 days and wanted a trace device that would let them intercept information unencrypted in real time. The court order only gave them permission to intercept certain information, but they would have had access to much more, and it would have compromised the security of their entire operation. Given the information we have available right now about US spy agencies' utter disrespect for the rule of law, he clearly made the right choice.
You actually can to quite a bit. Nazi Germany was largely the result of the Treaty of Versailles. Pearl Harbor was the result of us not being neutral in the war, and it wasn't hard to see something along those lines coming. Most terrorist acts in the last 50 years could be tracked to US dickery of some form or another if you are willing to put in a bit of work.
They announced a change in policy. That doesn't mean there actually was a change in policy, or that it was due to changes in knowledge. At best, it was an opportunity to act upon knowledge that has now become public but was already private. How naive are you?
Perhaps, but not anywhere near as much as it needs us to stop being assholes. Not being assholes will do far more for our safety. And signals intelligence often ends up creating threats, and is used as a crutch that allows for poor human intelligence, which is already inept enough.
Yes, the Enigma machine was a big achievement, and keeping that a secret was operationally important at the time. The UK was engaged in a real war with a real enemy that was a real threat. All we have now is sabre-rattling pissing contests, industrial espionage that only benefits corporate benefactors and other cronies, and the specter of 'terrorism', which isn't significantly greater now than at any other point in recent history, and certainly not for the UK.
Perhaps some of that information Snowden had is useful to credible threats to the security of the US or the UK. Here's the bad news: those credible threats already had that information, because the NSA has horrible internal security. Spy agencies have largely been bumbling morons, more closely resembling Maxwell Smart than James Bond, as a Beeb article pointed out. The degree of access Snowden had and even his admission into the agency were the result of the agency being incredibly inept. So, anything Snowden was able to get his hands on, Russia, China, Al Queda, Cobra Command, and the American Dental Association have all known for years. If you want to improve national security, shutting down and demolishing the NSA and GCHQ would be the best step to take.
What they had done in the past was agree to install a pen register or tap and trace device. With the way Lavabit works, that's completely useless.
The government of the UK CLAIMS is has suffered enormous damage to its security. That doesn't mean they actually think that to be the case. There's this behavior known as 'lying', and government have done this in the past, especially when dirty laundry has been exposed.
Do you have a source on that? IIRC, they have agreed to install 'pen register' devices in the past. Those provide no useful information for users of their paid accounts because it is all encrypted. They even eventually provided the SSL key, albeit in a very spiteful manner.
You are correct that the details of the whole situation are not all out yet, but when everything comes to light, it's usually the authoritarian governments acting in the shadows that come out as the bad guys. With the given evidence out so far, the level needed to justify everything they've done would have to be that they know of a serious threat to all life on Earth, and said threat could come from anywhere, likely involving leaders of other world governments. Anything short of that would mean that the NSA should be taken down.
You are making an inaccurate statement. The single pot plant is under federal jurisdiction because it might affect the PRICE of pot in other states, thus making it 'interstate commerce.' It's actually a little worse IMO than the situation you describe. But that was actually one of the cases I was thinking of in regards to SCOTUS ruling with very broad interpretations.
I'm not sure that it would meet that. It is an odd approach, but the third amendment is largely ignored, so there isn't a great deal of precedent on it.
While I agree that Congress would be the ideal vehicle, SCOTUS could and should shoot this kind of bullshit down, since these acts are not constitutional.
It is grasping at straws, but FBI agents often do carry guns, this was a privately owned business, and like I said before, SCOTUS has ruled very broadly on their interpretations of the enumerated powers, so it would only be fair to rule as broadly on the Bill of Rights. It probably won't make it that far, unforunately. There are better grounds that have a better chance, but we've given up on liberty if you can throw the words 'national security' in.
There is no such thing as 'access to a few accounts' in their model. And the feds weren't involved in a legitamite operation anyway. They were trying to track down someone who had exposed their crimes.
'Soliders' are staying in their 'home' without their consent. As broadly as they interpret 'interstate commerce', I can see it.
No, they didn't. The spooks demanded Lavabit's prviate SSL key.
Except for the fact that they couldn't do that by virtue of the site's design. As another article explained on /. explained, that design choice was good security practice because the government exploiting you is not any different technologically than any other insider attack. The problem is that the NSA got exposed, and they got pissed. The answer was to nuke the NSA from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I'd say it's a fair bet that they only got copyright trolls and such to bite. So, this troll was probably only getting the names of MPAA agents and the like.
The economy of my perfect world would be more or less Star Trek, in which the means of production far outclass material want, so the overwhelming majority of actions are taken for the purpose of self-impovement, not 'making a living.'
In regards to the ideal economics that are more bound to our current reality, I would still prefer to not have copyright. It was originally a means of censorship to protect kings and churches against heretical works spreading. Eventually, it became more about a powerful guild of publishers trying to maintain a legal monopoly, and they halfway got their wish with the Statute of Anne, which was claimed to be an act for the 'Encouragement of Learning.' Such a goal is the only justifiable reason for copyright, and the evidence that such a thing happened is incredibly weak. Copyright holders have consistently taken Luddite positions on any technology that could potentially upset their revenue model.
If a parent tells a child they are a special snowflake, it's probably the parent that thinks themselves the snowflake, not the child.
So, you are predicting that Adobe will be out of business in 15-20 years?
He's saying that the prisoners themselves would make the money. Instead of running drug cartels, they would be running legitimate construction companies.
In order to run out, he would have to have some in the first place.