Quantum cryptography is academic at this point. It is not as strong as old fashioned cryptography (like AES) and is much more expensive. Then I realized that there is no reason that someone can't use both.
Quantum crypto (at this point) is a key exchange mechanism. Thus, it doesn't compare to AES at all. You HAVE to use quantum crypto together with a classical exncryption algorithm. However, if you use quantom crypto you care about 100% theoretical security. Else you would simply use DH or any other well-known classical key exchange. And if you care about 100% theoretical security, there is no alternative to OTP.
So it's really an design error on the device side, not a true hack in that quantum states were undisturbed regardless of reading them.
As long as the attacer only wants to get the key, he does not care if this is a "true" hack (which would require a substantial change in our understanding of quantum physics) or a "cheaing" hack that only breaks the implementation. The major selling point of quantum crypto is the "100% security". If it's only "100% minus any bugs in the implementation" (which it obviously is), I could as well use a classical key exchange mechanism.
Yes, and if I understand the article correctly, the manufacturers developped a patch to fix the hole.
However, the hack shows (once again), that a system may be secure in theory, but actual implementations of that system may, and will, have bugs that render them insecure. This negates one of the most strong arguments for quantum crypto, i.e. the "proveable" security. If that argument does not hold, you could as well use any common "classical" key exchange algorithm, which also delivers "good, but not 100%" practical security, does not need fixed point-to-point fiber and expensive equipment, and is probably much better tested than the quantum systems.
No, it IS a huge problem. If you turn a quantum computing system into a classical system, you basically revert it to sending the key in plaintext. While it does not break the theory of quantum encryption, breaking all (commonly) available implementations of quantum crypto should be enough to be qualified as "huge kick in the balls".
It developed as early as late 8th century from the roman cursive s and faded out of use in most languages (i.e. except German) in the 18th century. (Fun fact: The integral math symbol used today is based upon the long s, short for (infinitesimals) sum).
In Germany it was used as long as Fraktur was the prominent typeface (i.e. until WWII). The rules in German when to use long s and when to use short s are pretty complex, but basically you use a regular 's' only at the end of syllabes, and long s else. Today, most Germans don't know how to use it correctly.
I don't know much about international usage, but if you are really interested you could start at wikipedia and click through the links.
German always used latin script, yet I'm still unable to read most old German documents. I can (mostly) read printed blackletter, but I've no chance deciffering handwritten scripts older that 70 years. Languages and scripts evolve, which means the average person will never be able to read really old documents.
Wait, so I'm not allowed to attach bumper stickers to random cars, but now I AM allowed to attach GPS devices. Does that mean I'm now allowed to attach bumper stickers as long as they are also GPS devices?
No, they don't! The "police" have no special powers other than exactly what statutes give them under special circumstances (arrest, crime in progress, etc). Since I do not know of any statute granting GPS powers, the only way the police can do this legally is because everyone can.
Which sounds slightly strange, as you'd not even be allowed to attach a bumper sticker to a car that's not yours.
Just as you don't just use Apple's trademarks to sell, say, "iPod tyres" (pun on the iPod wheel, see?)
Fun fact: A German designer tried to sell an eggcup under the name of eiPott (German pronouncation is almost equal to iPod, but literally translates to egg cup) and got sued by Apple. While the judge found the name to be slightly funny, he ruled it was a trademark infringement. At first the decision was met with surprise, because trademarks in Germany are bound to the field of trade they are registered for, but then it was revealed that Apple did indeed register the mark iPod for electronical entertainment devices and for kitchen supplies.
Social liberalism imposes a constraint of egalitarianism and social justice on liberalism. Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press are independent of egalitarianism and social justice, yet Germany restricts those still more strongly, for reasons completely unrelated to social justice.
Most of those restrictions are in place since WWII, mandated by the allies. Most of the restrictions are pretty much tailored to cover national sozialists. But yes, I'd really like a little bit more free speech in Germany.
No matter how you define "liberal", in my experience, actual mainstream German politics is fairly right-wing and closer to US Republicans (with a few exceptions).
You are the first person I've met that compares our mainstream politics, with its 5-party system (including the socialist "Linke"), with its expensive and extensive social system and its fairly big influence of the green party even remotely with US right wing politics. I'm not content with many things in our current gouverment, but to say its close to US republicans is simply ridiculous.
Democracy and the rule of law require transparency and informed decision making on the part of citizens, but Germany is steadily eroding those. If you don't like the US view (which personally I consider fairly balanced), have a look at Sweden.
If I want to look at a transparent Democracy, I'd look at Switzerland.
Take a look at the story of the waitress beeing fired because talking bad of customers on facebook. In germany, you would not be able to fire her, because she didn't break any law and she didn't fail at doing her job.
And that legal opinion is based on what? As far as I can tell, she could still be fired even under the new, proposed regulation.
This has nothing to do with the proposed regulation. Just employees' protection against dismissal. KSchG 1.
Really? I suggest you do an actual comparison instead of guessing.
So how is US employees' protection against dismissal going? Human right to social security? Human right to health?
Well, why don't you Google for, oh, 10 seconds and find the original source: Referentenentwurf.
You are right, and I'm wrong. Stupid me for believing the press.
Terms like "liberal" and "privacy" have standard meanings and a long legal and philosophical tradition; neither you nor German politicians get to change them arbitrarily.
Liberal may have a standard meaning, however it is definately used differently in different countries. In Germany, the term "liberal" is used for what you might call Social liberalism. As for privacy, of course that concept can be interpreted differently in different cultures.
Germany may have less individual rights than the US, however Germany has a better protection of those rights agains non-gouvermental entities.
Take a look at the story of the waitress beeing fired because talking bad of customers on facebook. In germany, you would not be able to fire her, because she didn't break any law and she didn't fail at doing her job. You are entitled to a private opinion, and you are entitled to publish your opinion. Your employer
has to accept that, as long as you do your job (including not telling the customers that they are cheap while still on the job)
There is nothing "almost" about it; German democracy and German society still have a long ways to go to prove themselves.
All of them appear to be about public Facebook pages, whose use appears to be generally legal even under the proposed German law.
I've now read 3 different sources about the law. All state, that using data from social networks like facebook is beeing prohibited, no execptions. If you have a better source, please tell me.
What I do in my private time on my private site is my private thing. As long as I don't do something illegal like selling business secrets, I should be able to do what I want.
Just because you believe that doesn't make it good policy.
Well, i could turn the table and ask why it should be a good policy to have your employer restrict what you can do in your spare time.
I have a right to privacy. My employer should respect that
If you publish your Facebook page, it is obviously not private information anymore and you should lose control over it.
You have a pretty narrow definition of privacy.
And coming from someone defending German laws, free speech arguments are ridiculous, given the massive legal restrictions on free speech in Germany.
I'm not defending German's lack of free speech.
The proposal does not suggest a "blanket prohibition" on using Facebook, it suggests a prohibition on using unpublished Facebook data (e.g., through friending) and it suggests limits on how published data (including published data from Facebook) can be used.
citation needed. TFA (german original) says, that "So darf ein Arbeitgeber künftig keine Daten mehr aus sozialen Internet-Netzwerken wie Facebook erheben, um sich über den Kandidaten zu informieren. Eine Ausnahme gilt nur für solche Internetdienste, die gerade der eigenen Präsentation des Bewerbers gegenüber möglichen Arbeitgebern dienen." ("An employer may not collect any data from Internet social networks such as Facebook to get information about the candidate. An exception applies only to Internet services that serve the sole purpose of presenting of the candidate to potential employers.")
Even under the proposed German law, many of the firings you list are probably still legal.
I believe most of the firings would not be legal under current German law.
Your political orientation is right wing populism, which is pretty far down the slippery slow to you-know-what.
Actually my political orientation is what would be called liberal in Germany, which should be pretty much left wing in US terms. And thanks for the almost-Godwin.
I'm not familiar with the US definition of a business, but here, more or less everything that generates money is considered a business (at least in the field of taxes and related areas). (And the city of Philadelphia seems to share that definition)
Even longer answer: If you make mony with a website or a blog, you'll have to pay taxes (surprise, surprise). If you don't make money, you don't have to pay. Nothing to see here, move along.
I guess you did do something about it, which is not pay the bill (and hopefully ruined your credit in the process), but either way fuck you for your sense of entitlement.[...] Cold? Hey, I'm not the one who made this about a balance sheet, you are.
I'm so glad to live in a country where you actually ARE entiteled to free medical service, but either way fuck your capitalist every-one-for-his-own lack of empathy.
While GP's conclusion (i.e. "Germans take everything literal") is debateable, the example is kind of right. If a coworker in Germany tells me to come and visit his house, it's meant as an actual invitation. If a frient tells me that we should go fishing, than it's an actual proposal. I've learned that it's different in the US, but here invitations are usually meant to be taken literally.
Those examples don't bear much on what I was saying. First of all, firing and hiring are different things.
Not really. Banning the use of facebook for hiring makes no sense if you can fire the employee the day after hiring for stuff he has on his facebook page.
Second, as I was saying: US employers have been limited in how they can use social networking sites, they haven't been prohibited from using them.
You tried to argue that "US allways had those regulations, and Europe is (barely) catching up". So how is Europe (or in this case, Germany) "catching up" if the regulation is stricter than in the US?
Third, some of the examples you list are not work related, others are currently in court.
All examples show people who were fired for something they wrote on facebook. How is beeing fired not work related? The last link cites a study that 8 percent of US companies fired somebody over his facebook page. I can't believe all of those cases are still in court.
Fourth, try to come up with arguments why a blanket prohibition is more reasonable than the US approach.
- What I do in my private time on my private site is my private thing. As long as I don't do something illegal like selling business secrets, I should be able to do what I want.
- I have a right to privacy. My employer should respect that
- Obviously (as shown by the links I provided), companies in the US misuse facebook to fire employees that execercise their right of free speech. Thus, the US approach does not work. Thus, a "blanket prohibition" is probably better.
Many of these protections are already in place in the US and Europe is just catching up. For example, US employers have been limited for years in how they can use social networking sites, based on existing US non-discrimination and privacy laws. Many of those restrictions in the US are based on case law; they don't require separate legislation.
In Germany, some companies allow private use of some company ressources (like email or phone). If you do not take additional measures, you have to assume any given phone call/mail/etc is private and are not allowed to log calls/mails/... at all. However, you can mandate that employees identify private use (e.g. I have to dial 123 for private calls and 0 for work related calls). If you are not allowing private use, you can assume that all use is work related.
Slashdot Mirror
Quantum cryptography is academic at this point. It is not as strong as old fashioned cryptography (like AES) and is much more expensive. Then I realized that there is no reason that someone can't use both.
Quantum crypto (at this point) is a key exchange mechanism. Thus, it doesn't compare to AES at all. You HAVE to use quantum crypto together with a classical exncryption algorithm. However, if you use quantom crypto you care about 100% theoretical security. Else you would simply use DH or any other well-known classical key exchange. And if you care about 100% theoretical security, there is no alternative to OTP.
So it's really an design error on the device side, not a true hack in that quantum states were undisturbed regardless of reading them.
As long as the attacer only wants to get the key, he does not care if this is a "true" hack (which would require a substantial change in our understanding of quantum physics) or a "cheaing" hack that only breaks the implementation. The major selling point of quantum crypto is the "100% security". If it's only "100% minus any bugs in the implementation" (which it obviously is), I could as well use a classical key exchange mechanism.
Yes, and if I understand the article correctly, the manufacturers developped a patch to fix the hole.
However, the hack shows (once again), that a system may be secure in theory, but actual implementations of that system may, and will, have bugs that render them insecure. This negates one of the most strong arguments for quantum crypto, i.e. the "proveable" security. If that argument does not hold, you could as well use any common "classical" key exchange algorithm, which also delivers "good, but not 100%" practical security, does not need fixed point-to-point fiber and expensive equipment, and is probably much better tested than the quantum systems.
No, it IS a huge problem. If you turn a quantum computing system into a classical system, you basically revert it to sending the key in plaintext. While it does not break the theory of quantum encryption, breaking all (commonly) available implementations of quantum crypto should be enough to be qualified as "huge kick in the balls".
It developed as early as late 8th century from the roman cursive s and faded out of use in most languages (i.e. except German) in the 18th century. (Fun fact: The integral math symbol used today is based upon the long s, short for (infinitesimals) sum).
In Germany it was used as long as Fraktur was the prominent typeface (i.e. until WWII). The rules in German when to use long s and when to use short s are pretty complex, but basically you use a regular 's' only at the end of syllabes, and long s else. Today, most Germans don't know how to use it correctly.
I don't know much about international usage, but if you are really interested you could start at wikipedia and click through the links.
Actually that is not an 'f', but a lower case mid-syllabe 's', which (in blackletter) looks a lot like 'f' but without the right half of the dash.
German always used latin script, yet I'm still unable to read most old German documents. I can (mostly) read printed blackletter, but I've no chance deciffering handwritten scripts older that 70 years. Languages and scripts evolve, which means the average person will never be able to read really old documents.
I just noticed that the story was submitted by user "Target Practice". Coincidence? I think not.
It's more ping-pong ball than baseball. The only element that adds size is the battery; the rest combined is about the size of a dime.
Wait, so I'm not allowed to attach bumper stickers to random cars, but now I AM allowed to attach GPS devices. Does that mean I'm now allowed to attach bumper stickers as long as they are also GPS devices?
No, they don't! The "police" have no special powers other than exactly what statutes give them under special circumstances (arrest, crime in progress, etc). Since I do not know of any statute granting GPS powers, the only way the police can do this legally is because everyone can.
Which sounds slightly strange, as you'd not even be allowed to attach a bumper sticker to a car that's not yours.
Just as you don't just use Apple's trademarks to sell, say, "iPod tyres" (pun on the iPod wheel, see?)
Fun fact: A German designer tried to sell an eggcup under the name of eiPott (German pronouncation is almost equal to iPod, but literally translates to egg cup) and got sued by Apple. While the judge found the name to be slightly funny, he ruled it was a trademark infringement. At first the decision was met with surprise, because trademarks in Germany are bound to the field of trade they are registered for, but then it was revealed that Apple did indeed register the mark iPod for electronical entertainment devices and for kitchen supplies.
You do realise that this story (which I assume you are referring to) is a fake, don't you?
Especially the "news" part. How can predictable events be news? Stop the presses, 15 years from now, Win95 will turn 30 years old!
Social liberalism imposes a constraint of egalitarianism and social justice on liberalism. Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press are independent of egalitarianism and social justice, yet Germany restricts those still more strongly, for reasons completely unrelated to social justice.
Most of those restrictions are in place since WWII, mandated by the allies. Most of the restrictions are pretty much tailored to cover national sozialists. But yes, I'd really like a little bit more free speech in Germany.
No matter how you define "liberal", in my experience, actual mainstream German politics is fairly right-wing and closer to US Republicans (with a few exceptions).
You are the first person I've met that compares our mainstream politics, with its 5-party system (including the socialist "Linke"), with its expensive and extensive social system and its fairly big influence of the green party even remotely with US right wing politics. I'm not content with many things in our current gouverment, but to say its close to US republicans is simply ridiculous.
Democracy and the rule of law require transparency and informed decision making on the part of citizens, but Germany is steadily eroding those. If you don't like the US view (which personally I consider fairly balanced), have a look at Sweden.
If I want to look at a transparent Democracy, I'd look at Switzerland.
Take a look at the story of the waitress beeing fired because talking bad of customers on facebook. In germany, you would not be able to fire her, because she didn't break any law and she didn't fail at doing her job.
And that legal opinion is based on what? As far as I can tell, she could still be fired even under the new, proposed regulation.
This has nothing to do with the proposed regulation. Just employees' protection against dismissal. KSchG 1.
Really? I suggest you do an actual comparison instead of guessing.
So how is US employees' protection against dismissal going? Human right to social security? Human right to health?
Well, why don't you Google for, oh, 10 seconds and find the original source: Referentenentwurf.
You are right, and I'm wrong. Stupid me for believing the press.
Terms like "liberal" and "privacy" have standard meanings and a long legal and philosophical tradition; neither you nor German politicians get to change them arbitrarily.
Liberal may have a standard meaning, however it is definately used differently in different countries. In Germany, the term "liberal" is used for what you might call Social liberalism. As for privacy, of course that concept can be interpreted differently in different cultures.
Germany may have less individual rights than the US, however Germany has a better protection of those rights agains non-gouvermental entities. Take a look at the story of the waitress beeing fired because talking bad of customers on facebook. In germany, you would not be able to fire her, because she didn't break any law and she didn't fail at doing her job. You are entitled to a private opinion, and you are entitled to publish your opinion. Your employer has to accept that, as long as you do your job (including not telling the customers that they are cheap while still on the job)
There is nothing "almost" about it; German democracy and German society still have a long ways to go to prove themselves.
Huh?
All of them appear to be about public Facebook pages, whose use appears to be generally legal even under the proposed German law.
I've now read 3 different sources about the law. All state, that using data from social networks like facebook is beeing prohibited, no execptions. If you have a better source, please tell me.
What I do in my private time on my private site is my private thing. As long as I don't do something illegal like selling business secrets, I should be able to do what I want.
Just because you believe that doesn't make it good policy.
Well, i could turn the table and ask why it should be a good policy to have your employer restrict what you can do in your spare time.
I have a right to privacy. My employer should respect that
If you publish your Facebook page, it is obviously not private information anymore and you should lose control over it.
You have a pretty narrow definition of privacy.
And coming from someone defending German laws, free speech arguments are ridiculous, given the massive legal restrictions on free speech in Germany.
I'm not defending German's lack of free speech.
The proposal does not suggest a "blanket prohibition" on using Facebook, it suggests a prohibition on using unpublished Facebook data (e.g., through friending) and it suggests limits on how published data (including published data from Facebook) can be used.
citation needed. TFA (german original) says, that "So darf ein Arbeitgeber künftig keine Daten mehr aus sozialen Internet-Netzwerken wie Facebook erheben, um sich über den Kandidaten zu informieren. Eine Ausnahme gilt nur für solche Internetdienste, die gerade der eigenen Präsentation des Bewerbers gegenüber möglichen Arbeitgebern dienen." ("An employer may not collect any data from Internet social networks such as Facebook to get information about the candidate. An exception applies only to Internet services that serve the sole purpose of presenting of the candidate to potential employers.")
Even under the proposed German law, many of the firings you list are probably still legal.
I believe most of the firings would not be legal under current German law.
Your political orientation is right wing populism, which is pretty far down the slippery slow to you-know-what.
Actually my political orientation is what would be called liberal in Germany, which should be pretty much left wing in US terms. And thanks for the almost-Godwin.
I'm not familiar with the US definition of a business, but here, more or less everything that generates money is considered a business (at least in the field of taxes and related areas). (And the city of Philadelphia seems to share that definition)
$300 for a business license is undoubly much too expensive, but even an unsuccessful business is a business.
So if you post on any forum you need to pay $300?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooo.
Even longer answer: If you make mony with a website or a blog, you'll have to pay taxes (surprise, surprise). If you don't make money, you don't have to pay. Nothing to see here, move along.
I guess you did do something about it, which is not pay the bill (and hopefully ruined your credit in the process), but either way fuck you for your sense of entitlement.[...] Cold? Hey, I'm not the one who made this about a balance sheet, you are.
I'm so glad to live in a country where you actually ARE entiteled to free medical service, but either way fuck your capitalist every-one-for-his-own lack of empathy.
While GP's conclusion (i.e. "Germans take everything literal") is debateable, the example is kind of right. If a coworker in Germany tells me to come and visit his house, it's meant as an actual invitation. If a frient tells me that we should go fishing, than it's an actual proposal. I've learned that it's different in the US, but here invitations are usually meant to be taken literally.
Those examples don't bear much on what I was saying. First of all, firing and hiring are different things.
Not really. Banning the use of facebook for hiring makes no sense if you can fire the employee the day after hiring for stuff he has on his facebook page.
Second, as I was saying: US employers have been limited in how they can use social networking sites, they haven't been prohibited from using them.
You tried to argue that "US allways had those regulations, and Europe is (barely) catching up". So how is Europe (or in this case, Germany) "catching up" if the regulation is stricter than in the US?
Third, some of the examples you list are not work related, others are currently in court.
All examples show people who were fired for something they wrote on facebook. How is beeing fired not work related? The last link cites a study that 8 percent of US companies fired somebody over his facebook page. I can't believe all of those cases are still in court.
Fourth, try to come up with arguments why a blanket prohibition is more reasonable than the US approach.
- What I do in my private time on my private site is my private thing. As long as I don't do something illegal like selling business secrets, I should be able to do what I want.
- I have a right to privacy. My employer should respect that
- Obviously (as shown by the links I provided), companies in the US misuse facebook to fire employees that execercise their right of free speech. Thus, the US approach does not work. Thus, a "blanket prohibition" is probably better.
Many of these protections are already in place in the US and Europe is just catching up. For example, US employers have been limited for years in how they can use social networking sites, based on existing US non-discrimination and privacy laws. Many of those restrictions in the US are based on case law; they don't require separate legislation.
Yeah, nobody in the US was ever fired for posting stuff on social networking sites like facebook
In Germany, some companies allow private use of some company ressources (like email or phone). If you do not take additional measures, you have to assume any given phone call/mail/etc is private and are not allowed to log calls/mails/... at all. However, you can mandate that employees identify private use (e.g. I have to dial 123 for private calls and 0 for work related calls). If you are not allowing private use, you can assume that all use is work related.