They allowed infected machines to continue to be useful.
Did they? I was under the impression that they shut down the C&C servers that the malware was pointing the infected computers to. That was how they were able to (eventually) shut them all off. If the FBI, through ICS, controlled the DNS server the malware was pointing to, how does the malware continue to be useful to it's creator?
Upon a careful reading of the actual executive order, I find, in my humble opinion, that the order does none of things that are being ranted about. First, the bulk of the order are instructions to DHS to develop policies and procedures to ensure that communications will survive in the event of a national emergency.
I posted a question below asking if I was missing something, because I too reached the same conclusion. But to play devil's advocate: These powers apply to "conditions of crisis or emergency". It is possible to argue that a large scale demonstration on the National Mall (i.e. yards from the White House and Capitol), or near facilities critical to the stable continuance of the economy (i.e. Wall Street) could be deemed a threat, crisis or emergency. The government could then argue that it needed to prioritize traffic on the cell network or radio airwaves to facilitate their response to the crisis.
Second, it does allude to ensuring that federal needs will have priority during emergencies, a privilege the government already enjoys.
I guess the crux of it is, who decides what is an emergency, and what is the populaces recourse if such decisions run counter to public opinion/consensus?
Here's the actual EO. What's the money quote that shows the teeth of this order? Here is the best I found, but it doesn't seem too nefarious on the face of it.
Sec. 5.2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: . . . (e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;
I didn't read TFA. Does it say they are going to hire in the US? The multi-national I work for has some local IT staff in the US offices (mostly related to the hardware infrastructure we require for operations), but traditional help-desk support is out of India.
She didn't admit any mistake, question any methods, she gripped onto her statements with ego and a religious fanaticism. And it happens every day.
Yes, but she's not the Pope. As other find flaws with her research, and these flaws are confirmed by multiple parties, then her findings (or "beliefs") will fall out of the general body of knowledge. If someone reaches a different religious conclusion, such as gay people can not be priests or bishops, then they will break off and form a splinter group (cf. recent happenings in the Anglican Church) and maintain that their beliefs are more valid than those of the original group. And due to our (read: American/Western) mores of religious freedom, we are inclined to not challenge them on it in any meaningful way.
Unlike in Science, the masses typically don't accept a paper as end-all truth(unless we are talking Catholicism). It typically takes several groups to determine something is correct or wrong, and only followers of those groups end up agreeing. At least until the other groups reach the same conclusions.
Actually, that sounds a lot like Science. Competing labs/universities reach different conclusions; third and fourth parties try to replicate results; arguments and debates erupt over mailing lists and academic conferences; etc. And in the absence of consensus you end up with factions adhering to, say the Standard Model or one of the flavors of String Theory.
This is not a technical problem. This is a legal problem.
It's both.
I agree that the legal issues involved currently outweigh the technical ones, but the technical issues are growing all the time. Currently, the stuff I would be most worried about losing access to would be digital photos and videos. Most of those we store locally on a machine my wife and I know the password to (in addition to cloud backup), but as we expand our digital locker assets (e.g. Ultraviolet videos) where we don't or can't keep a local copy, having an easy way to pass along (legal) access to those assets is important.
We don't use UV, but there are other services such as Shutterfly or Kodak Gallery where we have stuff. Usually the raw asset (i.e. photos) are easily available via local or backup copy (to which, again, we both know the passwords), but there is a lot of "added value" (e.g. completed photo albums) that, while not a disastrous loss, would be nice to keep.
I don't have mod points, so I'll just repeat for emphasis.
Set up a Family Trust and make sure all of your assets are in it. Besides avoiding the hassle of probate, you can gain some tax advantages potentially, and (this last part may not be unique to Trusts) easily lay out your wishes for who will take care of your minor children should you and your spouse die together.
Isn't one of the tenets of network security physically securing access to the servers? How would they prevent someone from tapping into the boxes and either sniffing traffic or directly stealing content?
It definitely wouldn't work where I live, in Phoenix Arizona. Half the area's inhabitants are meth-heads who'll steal anything that is or isn't bolted down.
I'd argue that, from what I've witnessed, American suburbanites tend to have too much of a protectionist culture (which is made up for their concentration in civics and scholastic achievements.) OTH, in rural areas, kids do get their hands dirty and participate in all types of physical activities.
Kids who live in cities do less nature stuff than kids who live in the country. Sure, I'll buy that. I'm not sure that translates to being "protectionist" though.
There is a certain breed of new parent (I would say Gen-Xers and those born just before and after, about 1960-1980), who has more concern than previous generations with making sure their kids: "succeed" in all things (i.e. get a trophy for every damn sport); don't get any skinned knees (e.g. load them up with a ton of pads and helmet every time they leave the house, don't walk outside barefoot); etc., etc.
I think this breed of parent could be found anywhere in the US. It may be found more frequently in more urban areas, but I think it has more to do with age rather than location.
A lot of the "this is not new" comments refer to differential positioning using reference receivers and having access to databases of transmitter locations (Rosum, the old Cursor positioning system from Cambridge Positioning Systems, etc). We consider those aspects to be undesirable constraints on a flexible opportunistic positioning system and don't rely on them.
Is the idea to be a fully self contained (and self teaching) system? Is there any way to (reliably) share transmitter location data between clients using some sort of P2P or swarm connection?
. In other words if you can buy it after you're sick/house has burned down/car has crashed it's not insurance but merely a cost shifting system.
I was wondering about this. The "fee" for not carrying insurance is less (presumably) than the cost of insurance. Since you can't be denied for a pre-existing condition, what's to stop the young* from not buying insurance until they're sick, pregnant, whatever?
*I heard that it is estimated that ~4m people will opt to pay the penalty. Why would this number not be higher?
Please name me the US Federal Government Car Insurance Mandate. Oh wait, there isn't one... because the Federal Government mandating car insurance would be unconstitutional.
What you say (in the first paragraph) makes sense. I would very much hope that FB does as much or more debugging and testing as other tech companies. But as much as I suspect FB of being insidious, I find it hard to believe they would knowingly release code which would irrevocably erase/overwrite users' contacts email addresses. They would basically have to be as cynical and sociopathic as traders at Goldman Sachs, which I suppose is entirely possible.
Slashdot Mirror
They allowed infected machines to continue to be useful.
Did they? I was under the impression that they shut down the C&C servers that the malware was pointing the infected computers to. That was how they were able to (eventually) shut them all off. If the FBI, through ICS, controlled the DNS server the malware was pointing to, how does the malware continue to be useful to it's creator?
Exactly. We know we never have to worry about a private corporation using personal data for profit, right?
So what DNS server(s) do you use? Probably (like most people) those of your ISP.
Upon a careful reading of the actual executive order, I find, in my humble opinion, that the order does none of things that are being ranted about. First, the bulk of the order are instructions to DHS to develop policies and procedures to ensure that communications will survive in the event of a national emergency.
I posted a question below asking if I was missing something, because I too reached the same conclusion. But to play devil's advocate:
These powers apply to "conditions of crisis or emergency". It is possible to argue that a large scale demonstration on the National Mall (i.e. yards from the White House and Capitol), or near facilities critical to the stable continuance of the economy (i.e. Wall Street) could be deemed a threat, crisis or emergency. The government could then argue that it needed to prioritize traffic on the cell network or radio airwaves to facilitate their response to the crisis.
Second, it does allude to ensuring that federal needs will have priority during emergencies, a privilege the government already enjoys.
I guess the crux of it is, who decides what is an emergency, and what is the populaces recourse if such decisions run counter to public opinion/consensus?
Here's the actual EO. What's the money quote that shows the teeth of this order? Here is the best I found, but it doesn't seem too nefarious on the face of it.
Sec. 5.2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: . . . (e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;
Politicians need checks from lobbyists to increase their balances.
I didn't read TFA. Does it say they are going to hire in the US? The multi-national I work for has some local IT staff in the US offices (mostly related to the hardware infrastructure we require for operations), but traditional help-desk support is out of India.
the people that did that Bad Science should go and consult on Discovery Channel "docu-dramas"
So you want them to peddle their Bad Science to the general public, who then go out and vote for School Board members?
She didn't admit any mistake, question any methods, she gripped onto her statements with ego and a religious fanaticism. And it happens every day.
Yes, but she's not the Pope. As other find flaws with her research, and these flaws are confirmed by multiple parties, then her findings (or "beliefs") will fall out of the general body of knowledge. If someone reaches a different religious conclusion, such as gay people can not be priests or bishops, then they will break off and form a splinter group (cf. recent happenings in the Anglican Church) and maintain that their beliefs are more valid than those of the original group. And due to our (read: American/Western) mores of religious freedom, we are inclined to not challenge them on it in any meaningful way.
Unlike in Science, the masses typically don't accept a paper as end-all truth(unless we are talking Catholicism). It typically takes several groups to determine something is correct or wrong, and only followers of those groups end up agreeing. At least until the other groups reach the same conclusions.
Actually, that sounds a lot like Science. Competing labs/universities reach different conclusions; third and fourth parties try to replicate results; arguments and debates erupt over mailing lists and academic conferences; etc. And in the absence of consensus you end up with factions adhering to, say the Standard Model or one of the flavors of String Theory.
This is not a technical problem. This is a legal problem.
It's both.
I agree that the legal issues involved currently outweigh the technical ones, but the technical issues are growing all the time. Currently, the stuff I would be most worried about losing access to would be digital photos and videos. Most of those we store locally on a machine my wife and I know the password to (in addition to cloud backup), but as we expand our digital locker assets (e.g. Ultraviolet videos) where we don't or can't keep a local copy, having an easy way to pass along (legal) access to those assets is important.
We don't use UV, but there are other services such as Shutterfly or Kodak Gallery where we have stuff. Usually the raw asset (i.e. photos) are easily available via local or backup copy (to which, again, we both know the passwords), but there is a lot of "added value" (e.g. completed photo albums) that, while not a disastrous loss, would be nice to keep.
And /. mods are inconsistent.
I've never seen a concealed fire safe.
I guess it worked then.
I don't have mod points, so I'll just repeat for emphasis.
Set up a Family Trust and make sure all of your assets are in it. Besides avoiding the hassle of probate, you can gain some tax advantages potentially, and (this last part may not be unique to Trusts) easily lay out your wishes for who will take care of your minor children should you and your spouse die together.
Isn't one of the tenets of network security physically securing access to the servers? How would they prevent someone from tapping into the boxes and either sniffing traffic or directly stealing content?
It definitely wouldn't work where I live, in Phoenix Arizona. Half the area's inhabitants are meth-heads who'll steal anything that is or isn't bolted down.
FTFY
Corporate Bullshit Generator
Bookmarked. I'm going to try to use a line from there in my PP presentation to Sales on Monday. Ahh, here we go:
"Market-driven cost efficiencies influence our perspectives."
I'd argue that, from what I've witnessed, American suburbanites tend to have too much of a protectionist culture (which is made up for their concentration in civics and scholastic achievements.) OTH, in rural areas, kids do get their hands dirty and participate in all types of physical activities.
Kids who live in cities do less nature stuff than kids who live in the country. Sure, I'll buy that. I'm not sure that translates to being "protectionist" though.
There is a certain breed of new parent (I would say Gen-Xers and those born just before and after, about 1960-1980), who has more concern than previous generations with making sure their kids: "succeed" in all things (i.e. get a trophy for every damn sport); don't get any skinned knees (e.g. load them up with a ton of pads and helmet every time they leave the house, don't walk outside barefoot); etc., etc.
I think this breed of parent could be found anywhere in the US. It may be found more frequently in more urban areas, but I think it has more to do with age rather than location.
"[S]ince Americans require the illusion of self-government, we have elections."
-Matt Taibbi
Dr. Ramsey,
In your post on Monday, you said:
A lot of the "this is not new" comments refer to differential positioning using reference receivers and having access to databases of transmitter locations (Rosum, the old Cursor positioning system from Cambridge Positioning Systems, etc). We consider those aspects to be undesirable constraints on a flexible opportunistic positioning system and don't rely on them.
Is the idea to be a fully self contained (and self teaching) system? Is there any way to (reliably) share transmitter location data between clients using some sort of P2P or swarm connection?
An axis with liberal and conservative ends is not 2D but 1D.
And an "axis" with Republican and Democrat ends is 0D.
how many voters even know what state their next president is from,
That's easy. Kenya.
. In other words if you can buy it after you're sick/house has burned down/car has crashed it's not insurance but merely a cost shifting system.
I was wondering about this. The "fee" for not carrying insurance is less (presumably) than the cost of insurance. Since you can't be denied for a pre-existing condition, what's to stop the young* from not buying insurance until they're sick, pregnant, whatever?
*I heard that it is estimated that ~4m people will opt to pay the penalty. Why would this number not be higher?
Please name me the US Federal Government Car Insurance Mandate. Oh wait, there isn't one... because the Federal Government mandating car insurance would be unconstitutional.
Here you go.
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=387.9
If you transport cargo over state lines, you must carry insurance on your vehicle.
Wait, Jobs won a Nobel too?
What you say (in the first paragraph) makes sense. I would very much hope that FB does as much or more debugging and testing as other tech companies. But as much as I suspect FB of being insidious, I find it hard to believe they would knowingly release code which would irrevocably erase/overwrite users' contacts email addresses. They would basically have to be as cynical and sociopathic as traders at Goldman Sachs, which I suppose is entirely possible.