The Department of Justice and Courts have reviewed procedures and warrants for the program.
Congress has authorized the program many times over.
Presidents are familiar with the program.
Can you count to three? Executive, Legislative, Courts. All of these groups were aware and gave their approval.
Who might I ask is the traitor in this scenario?
I did a quick read and it appeared they were passing passwords from the client to the unit where the dongle was plugged in via HTTP.
Is this not the case?
Do you believe Congress must understand all the details of how cellular networks or Internet service providers work in order to legislate concerning these topics? This is exactly why they have hired staff to do research for them and to inform them of the issues.
I could not disagree with you more.
Laws, policy, oversight, and competition in the market place require legislators with strengths in law, public policy, and business. Sure it would be great if they would understand technology, but their roles are to not to get into the weeds of techno babble to choose winners and losers in the markets place.
There are a fair share of high-level executives in business, law, government, and IT who do not know buzz words that often appear on Slashdot. My suggestion to fellow colleague - give them a break.
I totally agree with your post. Most likely the government official in the negotiations has a background in law and or policy and not information technology. Take an average Slashdot tech head and throw him into a court of law or political fish tank. You would get a fair share of snickers from the policy wonks as he/she would get lost in their daily language.
Thanks for the information. I watched half of the video. It had a lot of talk but not much information about how it works.
Based upon some of the comments on this thread the developers at Mt. Gox were very poor I would not trust my bank account to unprofessional hacks. What assurances are there that there are not vulnerabilities in the method discussed in the video. Just because something is Open Source does not make it secure and bulletproof.
Cryptography is a complicated subject and one must look at end-to-end implementation of all protocols involved to determine vulnerabilities.
If one more person quotes the Byzantine's general dilemma on this thread I'm going to projectile vomit.
Enough all ready with the pointy head nonsense,
The Bitcoin priests have the Byzantine General problem in their corner, math they don't understand, and half baked software running on computer under constant attack. What can go wrong there? Nothing - right?
Can someone please explain why this is not just a gigantic Ponzi scheme?
I get the notion that people within the system can use the virtual currency to trade products & service. The gigantic swings in the exchange rate between the virtual currencies and hard currencies makes no sense.
Are exchanges required to keep cash on hand, or in a traditional bank, to meet the obligations for the balance sheets?
Are exchanges required to turn away transfers into "account holders" if they do not have cash on hand to convert the virtual currency into a hard currency?
"Strong cryptography is very powerful when it is done right, but it is not a panacea. Focusing on the cryptographic algorithms while ignoring other aspects of security is like defending your house not by building a fence around it, but by putting an immense stake into the ground and hoping that the adversary runs right into it. Smart attackers will just go around the algorithms."
"Security Pitfalls in Cryptography", Bruce Schneier, https://www.schneier.com/essay...
Bitcoin uses cryptologic building blocks that have been around for years. On their own these algorithms have gone through extensive peer review. The challenge with cryptography comes in the implementation of the algorithms and the end-to-end protocols involved in the system.
To quote Bruce Schneier
"Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can't break. It's not even hard. What is hard is creating an algorithm that no one else can break, even after years of analysis. And the only way to prove that is to subject the algorithm to years of analysis by the best cryptographers around." [1]
[1] - https://www.schneier.com/blog/...
People are putting too much faith in the math and fail to look at the end-to-end implementation.
Straight from the horses mouth.
"Ongoing development - Bitcoin software is still in beta with many incomplete features in active development. New tools, features, and services are being developed to make Bitcoin more secure and accessible to the masses. Some of these are still not ready for everyone. Most Bitcoin businesses are new and still offer no insurance. In general, Bitcoin is still in the process of maturing" - Bitcoin FAQ
I have read that something like 25% of Bitcoins are being held by Bitcoin miners.
Has anyone done the long term analysis to compare the fees of traditional currency exchanges verses Bitcoin?
Regardless of how you feel about drugs the law is very clear on the ramifications for those who participate in illegal drug trade.
The government cannot take your money, house, etc. without going through legal channels. If the government tries to seize your assets unlawfully you have a venue through the legal system to protest. A bank can't seize your assets "just because they feel like it."
If a hacker 1) gets on your computer, 2) installs a key logger, and 3) steals your Bitcoins you have no legal recourse.
The "Pay It Forward" proposal amounts to an entitlement view on life that everyone is "owed" a right to higher education on someone else's dime.
How many students are on educational tracks for occupations that will not pay enough to allow them to re-pay their debt?
Employers have good reasons to monitor employees use of email, chat, and instant messaging. This is especially true for sectors such as business, law, and government. The monitoring has nothing to do with monitoring employee morale.
Slashdot Mirror
The Department of Justice and Courts have reviewed procedures and warrants for the program. Congress has authorized the program many times over. Presidents are familiar with the program. Can you count to three? Executive, Legislative, Courts. All of these groups were aware and gave their approval. Who might I ask is the traitor in this scenario?
I did a quick read and it appeared they were passing passwords from the client to the unit where the dongle was plugged in via HTTP. Is this not the case?
Very good points.
How about their remote API over HTTP?
Do you believe Congress must understand all the details of how cellular networks or Internet service providers work in order to legislate concerning these topics? This is exactly why they have hired staff to do research for them and to inform them of the issues.
They are encouraging folks to connect to their system to send passwords to scramble over HTTP. Does anybody else see a problem with this proposal?
I could not disagree with you more. Laws, policy, oversight, and competition in the market place require legislators with strengths in law, public policy, and business. Sure it would be great if they would understand technology, but their roles are to not to get into the weeds of techno babble to choose winners and losers in the markets place.
There are a fair share of high-level executives in business, law, government, and IT who do not know buzz words that often appear on Slashdot. My suggestion to fellow colleague - give them a break.
There are judges who want to reinterpret and those who do not.
I totally agree with your post. Most likely the government official in the negotiations has a background in law and or policy and not information technology. Take an average Slashdot tech head and throw him into a court of law or political fish tank. You would get a fair share of snickers from the policy wonks as he/she would get lost in their daily language.
Thanks for the information. I watched half of the video. It had a lot of talk but not much information about how it works. Based upon some of the comments on this thread the developers at Mt. Gox were very poor I would not trust my bank account to unprofessional hacks. What assurances are there that there are not vulnerabilities in the method discussed in the video. Just because something is Open Source does not make it secure and bulletproof. Cryptography is a complicated subject and one must look at end-to-end implementation of all protocols involved to determine vulnerabilities.
If one more person quotes the Byzantine's general dilemma on this thread I'm going to projectile vomit. Enough all ready with the pointy head nonsense,
The Bitcoin priests have the Byzantine General problem in their corner, math they don't understand, and half baked software running on computer under constant attack. What can go wrong there? Nothing - right?
So where do dollars enter and leave the system with the price of Bitcoins going up and down?
Can you explain how Bitcoin solves the problem of 'undoing' transactions made by mistake or fraud?
Can someone please explain why this is not just a gigantic Ponzi scheme? I get the notion that people within the system can use the virtual currency to trade products & service. The gigantic swings in the exchange rate between the virtual currencies and hard currencies makes no sense. Are exchanges required to keep cash on hand, or in a traditional bank, to meet the obligations for the balance sheets? Are exchanges required to turn away transfers into "account holders" if they do not have cash on hand to convert the virtual currency into a hard currency?
"Strong cryptography is very powerful when it is done right, but it is not a panacea. Focusing on the cryptographic algorithms while ignoring other aspects of security is like defending your house not by building a fence around it, but by putting an immense stake into the ground and hoping that the adversary runs right into it. Smart attackers will just go around the algorithms." "Security Pitfalls in Cryptography", Bruce Schneier, https://www.schneier.com/essay...
Bitcoin uses cryptologic building blocks that have been around for years. On their own these algorithms have gone through extensive peer review. The challenge with cryptography comes in the implementation of the algorithms and the end-to-end protocols involved in the system. To quote Bruce Schneier "Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can't break. It's not even hard. What is hard is creating an algorithm that no one else can break, even after years of analysis. And the only way to prove that is to subject the algorithm to years of analysis by the best cryptographers around." [1] [1] - https://www.schneier.com/blog/...
People are putting too much faith in the math and fail to look at the end-to-end implementation. Straight from the horses mouth. "Ongoing development - Bitcoin software is still in beta with many incomplete features in active development. New tools, features, and services are being developed to make Bitcoin more secure and accessible to the masses. Some of these are still not ready for everyone. Most Bitcoin businesses are new and still offer no insurance. In general, Bitcoin is still in the process of maturing" - Bitcoin FAQ
I have read that something like 25% of Bitcoins are being held by Bitcoin miners. Has anyone done the long term analysis to compare the fees of traditional currency exchanges verses Bitcoin?
Regardless of how you feel about drugs the law is very clear on the ramifications for those who participate in illegal drug trade. The government cannot take your money, house, etc. without going through legal channels. If the government tries to seize your assets unlawfully you have a venue through the legal system to protest. A bank can't seize your assets "just because they feel like it." If a hacker 1) gets on your computer, 2) installs a key logger, and 3) steals your Bitcoins you have no legal recourse.
Why is he held up in the embassy?
The "Pay It Forward" proposal amounts to an entitlement view on life that everyone is "owed" a right to higher education on someone else's dime. How many students are on educational tracks for occupations that will not pay enough to allow them to re-pay their debt?
Employers have good reasons to monitor employees use of email, chat, and instant messaging. This is especially true for sectors such as business, law, and government. The monitoring has nothing to do with monitoring employee morale.
Very good point. Appears that the author who posted the article has a very uninformed view of the world.