First you said he "shared secret information with our enemies." Then, when it turns out you're demonstrably wrong, you change that to "sharing with anyone that is not cleared is a violation of the contract he signed." Keep moving those goalposts. Maybe you'll eventually find something that works for you.
Hey, it's another "the government can do no wrong! Please, I want bureaucrats to penetrate my ass with probes on a daily basis! After all, I've done nothing wrong, so I have no reason to prevent the government from raping my ass!" shill!
Please explain why the NSA is "necessary." In fact, please explain what the NSA has to do with this story, as it's detailing Canada's illegal surveillance activities, not the USA's.
The NSA hasn't stopped a single terrorist attack. They've said so themselves. So hindering them doesn't do any harm to finding terrorists, either, but it does a LOT of good to our democratic and personal freedoms, which is what our two countries used to stand for and respect.
You, on the other hand, sound like you should be spouting propaganda about the Nazis, Stasi, KGB, or whoever, during their heyday, and how they're protecting the motherland from those "evil" capitalists.
Same methods, different enemy. And you're either falling for it hook, line, and sinker, or you're being paid to promote it. Either way, shut your festering gob, you twit.
It wasn't the "silo-ization" as you put it, that was the problem. From my memory, there were warnings to the FBI regarding the 9/11 terrorists, but they were ignored.
That being said, I don't give a damn if various agencies share data among themselves. It's all the same government, so they have the data....go ahead and use the data. (Sure, there are exceptions to that: eg. health data shouldn't be used by the police to place suspicion of drugs on you, so they can raid your house....etc.etc.) However, they shouldn't be using data that they have no business collecting in the first place. That's where the problem comes from. It is not the government's concern who I call, and for how long I talk to them. Unless one of those people I talk to is suspected of a crime and is actively being investigated, with a proper, publicly accessible court approved warrant, then leave my call records the fuck alone.
Thinking that you will be secure by putting bad domain names into your host file will tead to tears of failure because:
a) it's attempting to enumerate badness. There's always new badness, you can't enumerate it all. New badness can be created quicker than you can update your hosts file.
b) bad software can happily use a randomly or dynamically generated name which you cannot add to your hosts file, as it can't be known in advance, and may only be used once.
How do we know that the malware uses a domain name in the first place? Maybe it just uses the IP address, which of course, cannot be blocked by modifying the hosts file, regardless of what apk will tell you.
If you're moving gigabytes of data, FTP is still the ticket. If you need encryption, do it first on the data files.
That does nothing to prevent your password from being sniffed. However, like the GP, I've managed 8-10 MB/s to a Pentium 3 server on a 100Mb network, which is barely slower than FTP on the same hardware. It certainly loads the processor more than FTP does, so if you're trying to do multiple client connections on a Gigabit network with a low end processor in the server, you might slow things down. Maybe that's what your use case is?
There's "keeping the nation safe from a foreign invasion," and then there's "keeping individuals safe from an individual or small group of wackjobs." The first is the job of the government. The second one isn't. They're trying to conflate the two, and take over the second, as well as the first.
That might work for something composed of tables of numbers, bank data, Phone call pen register logs, or passwords as the GP suggests, but not for text. Humans are very good at determining gibberish from prose, or fragments of color from images. Plausible, but bogus, is a tough nut to crack where human evaluation is involved.
The whole point of brute-forcing is that you don't need human evaluation. Are you really planning on a human evaluating the results from all 2^128 possible keys? How many universe lifetimes do you have to crack this thing?
I can think of 535 better people to leak it to after the IG.
Many of whom are twisting logic to unrecognizable proportions to support the NSAs activities. Where's the guarantee he would have got a sympathetic Member of Congress, rather than a "Wow. Let me look at these documents. I'm just going to go over to <somebody's> office to show them this revelation. Wait here." <30 seconds later, police burst into the office and shoot Snowden in the head for resisting arrest with a stapler>?
He deserves his right to a fair and speedy trial, by a jury of his peers.
He can come to the US can get that.
Hahaha.. Good one! Oh..wait....you're serious? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
He deserves his right to face his accusers, the accusations they make, and the evidence being presented against him.
Again, if he wants it, he can come and get it.
So all that national security classified shit is going to be paraded through an open courtroom? How naive are you? All the evidence against him will be classified, and conveniently, neither Snowden nor his lawyer, whoever that is, will be cleared to see it, so he most definitely will not be able to face the evidence presented against him. Once he can't face and challenge the evidence, anything else you claim also cannot be faced.
He deserves his right (and duty) to out traitors to the American People, so they may be tried for their crimes as well.
Who and what law? It's unclear what law has been broken.
How come all the blind schmucks who keep claiming this are ACs? Is the cold_fjord account banned by too many people now? Seriously, everybody who claims the government broke no laws, and that court rulings have been in the NSAs favour, are all ACs.
The man sold out his government, and I'm guessing whether he comes back or not, we have ways to deal with traitors. Subtle or not so much.
So I'm guessing from your choice of words, that you're part of that corrupt government, then? Sheesh. The training they give shills these days. It's like trying to get competent tech support from a foreign call center. At least make sure they know not to give away their position through a couple of pronouns....
That's exactly it, though. He sold out his government. Not the country. Not the citizens. Not anybody that actually matters in a "for the people, by the people" kind of country. He sold out a traitorous government to their bosses, the people.
He didn't share anything with enemies. He shared with a UK journalist, but the UK is an ally of the USA. It was that journalist that published, allowing "enemies" to read it.
Having said that, someone else posted that countries nowadays are rivals, not enemies, barring the occasional nutjob run state like North Korea. I tend to agree. Those nutjob states, though, that could actually be classifed as "enemies," have leaders that are so mind numbingly paranoid, that they probably wouldn't believe anything that came from the media regarding the NSA, as they'd think it was planted propaganda. So, basically, the only thing this has done is embarrass the bureaucracy, and convinced those nutjob leaders that the released documents are definitely not describing what is actually happening.
..... as to the NSA breaking the law the courts have ruled that they were not
There has been one court ruling that I know of, which stated the NSA was not breaking the law. This ruling was full of "this is a useful program to the government" bullshit, with virtually no references to the law itself. In other words, possibly came from a corrupt judge, and is almost certain to be overturned on appeal, barring more corrupt judiciary. There has been at least one court ruling stating the NSA did, in fact, break the law, as well as several government committees that came to the same conclusion. The number of rulings from courts and other sources stating that they did break the law is much greater than the number stating they didn't break the law.
Maybe you should remove your nose from the NSAs collective ass, and pay attention to what's being said.
I see your point of confusion, you think that the NSA has been involved with, to use your phrase, "vast, incredibly illegal spying." That isn't true. Nothing that the NSA has been doing has been shown to violate US law, at least that I'm aware of.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Oh, but you're cold fjord, so you've probably had your nose so far up Clapper's ass that you haven't been able to see what's going on around you. Come to think of it, how do you manage to type to post on/. when you're too busy licking boots and buttholes to be able to see the screen?
If "everybody does it, it's just that the USA got caught" as has been claimed by various pro-government trolls on/., then the USA's reputation has suffered no damage, because everybody already knew they did it, just as their own countries also do it. If everybody else *doesn't* do it, then the USA deserves their damaged reputation, and they deserve it.
Do you think Rob Ford's reputation as a crack smoker was caused by Gawker, or by Rob Ford? If the USA's reputation has been damaged by this, it is entirely the US government's fault, rather than Snowden's.
You're trying to blame Snowden for the US government's failures. That's why you were downvoted.
Okay, that explains *one* VM. Although I don't see the reason why it needs to be a VM versus just a background process.
Because if I decide to move that backup machine to a different piece of hardware, it means copying a folder of files, and moving a single drive. Were it a background process, I'd need to do a bunch of configuring and testing on the new machine to get things working and verified. VMs are easy. Background processes aren't, necessarily.
Something breaks on a 13 year old car, and it gets fixed under warranty? Really? What auto manufacturer, anywhere, worldwide, at any price point, offers a warranty that long?
Hint: None of them.
It was a safety defect that was found, and remedied, free of charge. Which, incidentally, " increased its security and resilience to accidents." For free. On my 13 year old car.
Car warranties are generally 3-5 years. XP is now 13 years old.
Find me a car on the market with gratis lifetime warranty / support, and we'll talk. Generally new cars with computer systems are lucky if they get a years worth of updates for said computer.
I got warranty work done on my first car when it was 13 years old. Completely free, as it was paid for by the manufacturer.
Basically, if it's.Net, just run it. It'll either work, or it never worked anyway.
Bullshit. I've got a VB2005 app that I wrote, that, if compiled on Win7, works fine on Win7, but crashes on XP. If the exact same source code is compiled on XP, I'm pretty sure it didn't work on 7. This is due to differences in the way.NET versions some components between XP and 7. I had to do some weird conditional bullshit just to deal with it, so that it would work on both Windows versions, without compiling a different version on each one. And this is just a simple little program that downloads a file from a remote webserver and unzips it, along with ensuring to delete old versions of the file, and some other security checks. Hardly a hundred lines of code, and it won't "just run."
What are you running in the backround, 3 4GB VMs?!
Why is that so hard to believe? I have a Linux VM running on mine that backs up important stuff from a server to a 3TB hard drive in my desktop. It's got a couple of GB dedicated to that VM, plus I can leave web browsers and other stuff running, which can take a lot of memory at times, and still have enough left to play my game.
Slashdot Mirror
First you said he "shared secret information with our enemies." Then, when it turns out you're demonstrably wrong, you change that to "sharing with anyone that is not cleared is a violation of the contract he signed."
Keep moving those goalposts. Maybe you'll eventually find something that works for you.
Hey, it's another "the government can do no wrong! Please, I want bureaucrats to penetrate my ass with probes on a daily basis! After all, I've done nothing wrong, so I have no reason to prevent the government from raping my ass!" shill!
Please explain why the NSA is "necessary." In fact, please explain what the NSA has to do with this story, as it's detailing Canada's illegal surveillance activities, not the USA's.
The NSA hasn't stopped a single terrorist attack. They've said so themselves. So hindering them doesn't do any harm to finding terrorists, either, but it does a LOT of good to our democratic and personal freedoms, which is what our two countries used to stand for and respect.
You, on the other hand, sound like you should be spouting propaganda about the Nazis, Stasi, KGB, or whoever, during their heyday, and how they're protecting the motherland from those "evil" capitalists.
Same methods, different enemy. And you're either falling for it hook, line, and sinker, or you're being paid to promote it. Either way, shut your festering gob, you twit.
It wasn't the "silo-ization" as you put it, that was the problem. From my memory, there were warnings to the FBI regarding the 9/11 terrorists, but they were ignored.
That being said, I don't give a damn if various agencies share data among themselves. It's all the same government, so they have the data....go ahead and use the data. (Sure, there are exceptions to that: eg. health data shouldn't be used by the police to place suspicion of drugs on you, so they can raid your house....etc.etc.)
However, they shouldn't be using data that they have no business collecting in the first place. That's where the problem comes from. It is not the government's concern who I call, and for how long I talk to them. Unless one of those people I talk to is suspected of a crime and is actively being investigated, with a proper, publicly accessible court approved warrant, then leave my call records the fuck alone.
From my understanding, it was Microsoft that was the bully here, and tried to take the trademark from BSkyB in court, but lost.
Thinking that you will be secure by putting bad domain names into your host file will tead to tears of failure because:
a) it's attempting to enumerate badness. There's always new badness, you can't enumerate it all. New badness can be created quicker than you can update your hosts file.
b) bad software can happily use a randomly or dynamically generated name which you cannot add to your hosts file, as it can't be known in advance, and may only be used once.
How do we know that the malware uses a domain name in the first place? Maybe it just uses the IP address, which of course, cannot be blocked by modifying the hosts file, regardless of what apk will tell you.
If you're moving gigabytes of data, FTP is still the ticket. If you need encryption, do it first on the data files.
That does nothing to prevent your password from being sniffed.
However, like the GP, I've managed 8-10 MB/s to a Pentium 3 server on a 100Mb network, which is barely slower than FTP on the same hardware. It certainly loads the processor more than FTP does, so if you're trying to do multiple client connections on a Gigabit network with a low end processor in the server, you might slow things down. Maybe that's what your use case is?
There's "keeping the nation safe from a foreign invasion," and then there's "keeping individuals safe from an individual or small group of wackjobs."
The first is the job of the government. The second one isn't. They're trying to conflate the two, and take over the second, as well as the first.
That might work for something composed of tables of numbers, bank data, Phone call pen register logs, or passwords as the GP suggests, but not for text.
Humans are very good at determining gibberish from prose, or fragments of color from images. Plausible, but bogus, is a tough nut to crack
where human evaluation is involved.
The whole point of brute-forcing is that you don't need human evaluation. Are you really planning on a human evaluating the results from all 2^128 possible keys? How many universe lifetimes do you have to crack this thing?
I can think of 535 better people to leak it to after the IG.
Many of whom are twisting logic to unrecognizable proportions to support the NSAs activities. Where's the guarantee he would have got a sympathetic Member of Congress, rather than a "Wow. Let me look at these documents. I'm just going to go over to <somebody's> office to show them this revelation. Wait here." <30 seconds later, police burst into the office and shoot Snowden in the head for resisting arrest with a stapler>?
It would be hard enough hiding public activity from the NSA, it would be impossible to hide suspicious activity on their own networks and servers.
Considering they still don't know everything he took, I'm thinking you're giving the NSA a little too much credit, here.
He deserves his right to a fair and speedy trial, by a jury of his peers.
He can come to the US can get that.
Hahaha.. Good one! Oh..wait....you're serious?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
He deserves his right to face his accusers, the accusations they make, and the evidence being presented against him.
Again, if he wants it, he can come and get it.
So all that national security classified shit is going to be paraded through an open courtroom? How naive are you? All the evidence against him will be classified, and conveniently, neither Snowden nor his lawyer, whoever that is, will be cleared to see it, so he most definitely will not be able to face the evidence presented against him. Once he can't face and challenge the evidence, anything else you claim also cannot be faced.
He deserves his right (and duty) to out traitors to the American People, so they may be tried for their crimes as well.
Who and what law? It's unclear what law has been broken.
How come all the blind schmucks who keep claiming this are ACs? Is the cold_fjord account banned by too many people now? Seriously, everybody who claims the government broke no laws, and that court rulings have been in the NSAs favour, are all ACs.
The government isn't a thinking entity.
You can say that again.....
The man sold out his government, and I'm guessing whether he comes back or not, we have ways to deal with traitors. Subtle or not so much.
So I'm guessing from your choice of words, that you're part of that corrupt government, then?
Sheesh. The training they give shills these days. It's like trying to get competent tech support from a foreign call center. At least make sure they know not to give away their position through a couple of pronouns....
That's exactly it, though. He sold out his government. Not the country. Not the citizens. Not anybody that actually matters in a "for the people, by the people" kind of country. He sold out a traitorous government to their bosses, the people.
He didn't share anything with enemies. He shared with a UK journalist, but the UK is an ally of the USA. It was that journalist that published, allowing "enemies" to read it.
Having said that, someone else posted that countries nowadays are rivals, not enemies, barring the occasional nutjob run state like North Korea. I tend to agree.
Those nutjob states, though, that could actually be classifed as "enemies," have leaders that are so mind numbingly paranoid, that they probably wouldn't believe anything that came from the media regarding the NSA, as they'd think it was planted propaganda.
So, basically, the only thing this has done is embarrass the bureaucracy, and convinced those nutjob leaders that the released documents are definitely not describing what is actually happening.
..... as to the NSA breaking the law the courts have ruled that they were not
There has been one court ruling that I know of, which stated the NSA was not breaking the law. This ruling was full of "this is a useful program to the government" bullshit, with virtually no references to the law itself. In other words, possibly came from a corrupt judge, and is almost certain to be overturned on appeal, barring more corrupt judiciary.
There has been at least one court ruling stating the NSA did, in fact, break the law, as well as several government committees that came to the same conclusion. The number of rulings from courts and other sources stating that they did break the law is much greater than the number stating they didn't break the law.
Maybe you should remove your nose from the NSAs collective ass, and pay attention to what's being said.
I see your point of confusion, you think that the NSA has been involved with, to use your phrase, "vast, incredibly illegal spying." That isn't true. Nothing that the NSA has been doing has been shown to violate US law, at least that I'm aware of.
Then you haven't been paying attention. /. when you're too busy licking boots and buttholes to be able to see the screen?
Oh, but you're cold fjord, so you've probably had your nose so far up Clapper's ass that you haven't been able to see what's going on around you. Come to think of it, how do you manage to type to post on
.....he is also believed to have made contacts with Chinese and Russian operatives before he fled the country.
Believed by whom? Anonymous Crackpots on the Internet? Sure. They're completely trustworthy.
The only people who say Snowden was working with the Russians are the various lawbreaking members of the US government, who are actively running a smear campaign against Snowden. The FBI, however, has maintained for some time that Snowden acted alone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25806855
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/26/usa-security-snowden-idUSL2N0L00BR20140126
If "everybody does it, it's just that the USA got caught" as has been claimed by various pro-government trolls on /., then the USA's reputation has suffered no damage, because everybody already knew they did it, just as their own countries also do it.
If everybody else *doesn't* do it, then the USA deserves their damaged reputation, and they deserve it.
Do you think Rob Ford's reputation as a crack smoker was caused by Gawker, or by Rob Ford?
If the USA's reputation has been damaged by this, it is entirely the US government's fault, rather than Snowden's.
You're trying to blame Snowden for the US government's failures. That's why you were downvoted.
To be honest, probably the better you are at it, the more of an insufferable twat you become.
So you only hire people not competent to do the job that's available? "I'm sorry, but you are competent, so you must be a twat."
Straw man much?
Okay, that explains *one* VM. Although I don't see the reason why it needs to be a VM versus just a background process.
Because if I decide to move that backup machine to a different piece of hardware, it means copying a folder of files, and moving a single drive. Were it a background process, I'd need to do a bunch of configuring and testing on the new machine to get things working and verified. VMs are easy. Background processes aren't, necessarily.
Something breaks on a 13 year old car, and it gets fixed under warranty? Really?
What auto manufacturer, anywhere, worldwide, at any price point, offers a warranty that long?
Hint: None of them.
It was a safety defect that was found, and remedied, free of charge. Which, incidentally, " increased its security and resilience to accidents." For free. On my 13 year old car.
The Republicans came to town to see a hangin' and by golly, a hangin' they're gonna git.
Great horny toads! What are ya doin' down there upside-downy?
Q: Where do you see yourself in five years?
A: In a mirror!
A mirror 2.5 light years away!
Car warranties are generally 3-5 years. XP is now 13 years old.
Find me a car on the market with gratis lifetime warranty / support, and we'll talk. Generally new cars with computer systems are lucky if they get a years worth of updates for said computer.
I got warranty work done on my first car when it was 13 years old. Completely free, as it was paid for by the manufacturer.
Yes. You read that correctly.
Basically, if it's .Net, just run it. It'll either work, or it never worked anyway.
Bullshit. I've got a VB2005 app that I wrote, that, if compiled on Win7, works fine on Win7, but crashes on XP. If the exact same source code is compiled on XP, I'm pretty sure it didn't work on 7. This is due to differences in the way .NET versions some components between XP and 7. I had to do some weird conditional bullshit just to deal with it, so that it would work on both Windows versions, without compiling a different version on each one.
And this is just a simple little program that downloads a file from a remote webserver and unzips it, along with ensuring to delete old versions of the file, and some other security checks. Hardly a hundred lines of code, and it won't "just run."
What are you running in the backround, 3 4GB VMs?!
Why is that so hard to believe? I have a Linux VM running on mine that backs up important stuff from a server to a 3TB hard drive in my desktop. It's got a couple of GB dedicated to that VM, plus I can leave web browsers and other stuff running, which can take a lot of memory at times, and still have enough left to play my game.