they make it clear on their accounts that they are members of such groups. i would imagine that they have private accounts that google doesn't know about.
most of their recent actions with twitter et al have been a matter of PR - to get the public on board with what they are about. which was exactly the accounts that got banned by google+.
personally i can't believe that google of all organizations would do this. short of pressure from gov entities i suppose. and the creation of a social network that is NOT geared for tracking you seems like a good idea. however, i'm not sure they can afford the bandwidth without either stealing it or finding some source of income for the site.
i can't imagine that the "my friend has been hacked" button will last. I would imagine that the hackers would want to flood that button to obscure the real attacks. and it wouldn't be that hard to script....
ok, so you missed that "new Internet *infrastructure* to reduce the threat of cyberattacks" part AND that ".secure would require visitors to use certified credentials for entry and would do away with users' Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. " part of the article then. and yes, my bad, i said 5th amendment. i meant 4th:S
even still your point about simply having different legal rules is still part of my point - they already track everything you do when on their systems. and if given access to sensitive stuff they likely track more than just your network activity. so... that says to me that ALL they want is an excuse to perform unwarranted actions - phone taps, keyloggers, etc. considering that is about the only left that it would accomplish.
actually - in case you are serious... he suggested making a separate internet for things like financial data, confidential info, etc. and then using a.secure at the end of any domain names that are in this "separate internet" - and making it unavailable via normal internet browsing, and making it so that anyone who does go on to those address, whether permitted or not, automatically give up their 5th amendment. (and i doubt he is limiting this just in the realm of your "online privacy" )...
but here is the problem with that: if we wanted to be able to process CC payments or view bank statements online we (the general public) would need to be able to use a domain that at least had access to that information. which is already how it works. which was my point. and short of making it so that financial info isn't connected to the internet in any way, or to any other computer or network that is connected to the internet in *any* way, it will still be insecure. and having it connected in *any* way would make it effectively the SAME as things currently work.
for example: when you are at work, your computer's IP is not a public IP. you cannot go home and connect to that computer via it's IP. it is a private IP that only exists inside your companies network. but, if you were to connect to that network, like say via virtual private network connect, then you could connect via that IP address. so - your company has it's own little "internet" (typically called an intranet) already that can see the rest of the world via some singular server. if you unplug that server from its ISP then you could no longer google porn or get emails - but you would be secure (from the outside world at least). without said connections anything like this would be pointless. and if we are talking systems that are for, say, nuclear systems controls.... those are probably already are setup in a closed-circuit manner.
thus, the ONLY thing any of this guys rhetoric accomplishes is that whole "loss of 5th amendment rights" bit. comprende?
"a separate internet" nope - sounds nothing like it. unless you suppose they plan to make a network with NO internet access for secure data. not sure how that would work exactly. unless there were maybe only specific computers that internet activity was pushed through. then maybe yeah... that must be it. oh wait - that must be one of those internal network thingy's. but lets call it a "separate internet" for the sake of making sure it is different.....
you seemed to have missed something - it's called sarcasm. you can read about it on http://www.google.com./:p even more, i think you missed his entire second sentence. something about "profiling being frowned upon these days"... can't be too sure though.
further, it is incorrect to say "because he is ethnic he is a criminal." and i don;t think *anyone* honestly thinks that. even those who say racist things aren't so niave to think that is a true statement. yet we always react out of a fear that we will be deemed as one of those people who DO think that is true..... but the fact is that, statistically speaking, a neighborhood which is poorer than its surrounding neighborhoods has more crime than those surrounding neighborhoods. combine that with the unfortunate fact that those neighborhoods are typically higher in ethnic groups than others and you get this stupidity. whether there is a correlation there or not isn't really of any difference (if there is crime to fight there, then fight it) - but yet it is what everyone always focuses on in these matters. the fact of the matter is that police aren't concentrated in high-crime areas, as they should be, for fear of being accused of racial profiling - because of that potential correlation between income and ethnicity. this is what the OP was getting at.
replying to myself FTW.... and further, as far as i understand, when working for a gov, or any such hi-risk, institution you already DO sign away your right to privacy. they monitor all of your computer activities, often track you personally, and will survey your personal life as well. so what would formally telling people that "by going to this web address you are forfeiting your rights to privacy" accomplish? sounds like a setup for yet another loop-hole for them to be able to perform warrant-less activities.
you mean... like some kind of internal network? with some sort of DMZ that separates it from the rest of the interweb? wow, i bet those gov IT guys never thought of that! i wonder where this guy got his IT degree from... oh wait. lul. and "certified credentials" ? you mean none of those gov websites require credentials? and here i was impressed by all the recent hacking of those servers that had happened.... guess I should have taken a better look into the matter! and yes, changing those pesky interweb adresses from.gov to.secure will definitely make things *much* more secure.
on a more serious note, how about we start listening to people that actually know WTF they're talking about instead of putting everything into a title. do we really think that just because he was the head of the NSA that he has god-like mental abilities? no. more than likely he simply has a quicker wit than most, a family with money/political ties and the ability kiss anything - no matter how brown it is.
i'm *not* a db guy,(actually a software-development-platform QA guy... ) but i've dealt with a large variety of them, and oracle is the odd-ball by far. not MySQL. MySQL to Oracle would be a nightmare - but worth the performance benefits. MySQL to near anything else would be comparatively simple. but if FB plans to do it right, they will go with oracle. its not like they can't afford the investment....
IMO it has more to do with our military advertising than anything. the military gets to review all movies etc as part of the MPAA rating and toss in their 2 cents. and if we condition our children to be okay with violence then maybe they'll be more likely to be a good soldier. not that i agree that this is a good thing.... just what i see as the main culprit. sex SHOULD be more widely accepted than decapitation. but what can we do?
someone just make a ccxml transfer app for the telco's that does 100% callrecording and uses an extensive grammar to trigger a 3rd leg in half-duplex to the feds on key words; like "liberal" or "obama" or "mary juana".... or hell, lets just go with "hello" that should get the coverage they are looking for....
you give us one news story where any of the antisec movement has been geared for profit. one. pfft. and if by releasing everything to the general public as control of information, then yes, you are right there. to the OP good post. keep up supporting these guys. they are literally the only ones *actually* defending our freedom at this point.
i think you missed something. hacking groups like this have been active for as long as it's been possible. so the question you should be asking is why is the media all of a sudden paying attention.
i would be prone to say that it is because these hackers have been very vocal and begging for this attention. but that is actually not really new either. so something else seems to be going on. i suppose its the mixture of them being politically motivated and massively successful in their hacking efforts (sony, the CIA, FBI, various gov's, HBGary, etc) or, it is simply because it focuses on an already hot topic - how can the gov control the internet, and how can the users stop them.
back to the direct point of the article; these attempts at our liberty are the very thing fueling this movement. i'm not sure the RIAA realizes what effects this may have. besides that, to me these hacks show that we CAN'T actually protect individuals from hackers via goverment policy - considering how we can't even manage protect individual sites - which would mean the crimes would still happen and the only thing left would be the side effect of " liberties lost. " which doesn't sound like a *solution* to me.
back when hacking/customizing XP was the thing i accidentally turned *EVERYTHING* black while trying to turn just the BG of the start menu black... and was able to remember undo the entire thing with just keyboard commands. starting with the windows key and using arrows to get through the start menu... i had no clue whether what i was selecting was correct, or even doing anything! but yeah, had i not known how to navigate via keyboard i would have had to re format... its good stuff to know for sure.
ditto. wtf are they thinking? isn't it the goal of most gaming companies to make the extended play-ability a selling point? not make it so that after 10 hours or whatever the $60 you spent is gone...
but yeah, either way i definitely wont be buying this game, or *anything* from capcom for that matter.
during my stint as a structural engineer i found that coming across information that was beyond the basics (wind pressure, simple span beams, etc) was virtually impossible. try finding enough info on something like "parabolically haunched steel girders" or "fully tempered glass plate in edge compression" or "bi-directional catenary action (e.g. tension fabric)" via google to even make an educated opinion, much less actually calculate something. without forking out several hundred bucks in the process that is.
i understand that these people need to be able to make a profit, but i have something like 100 $100-$300 books in my personal library; and the fact that this still wasn't nearly enough to do everything i've needed to so is a problem in my eyes.
further, now that i'm in programming i find that 80% of what i need i can find online. and of the remainder a good portion can be solved by posting in a forum. the rest ends with me getting a book to further general knowledge about some topic. this is how it ought to be. it the very thing that has caused tech to blossom the way it has; and if anything it has ended in MORE money for that industry. not less.
here's an idea - stop charging so much for simple information and maybe engineers can start making the money they deserve./rant
""" To put this in a concrete context, games of chess are not won by dint of reasoning alone; they are won by the ability to imagine what your opponent's reasoned responses to your proposed set of moves might be. """
uh.. wouldn't that still be "reasoning" ? sure imagination and reason are different - but if in this case it would appear the imagination is merely a tool for the reasoning to be performed... so, still reasoning.
i mean, that's where it all originates from in the first place! what about command prompts? most hacking wouldn't possible be possible without those. but then again.. neither would my job... besides, most of these tools double as IT and development aids (e.g. wireshark). further, what a few people use for malicious attacks other people use to understand where the loopholes are and close them. all this would accomplish is fewer people being educated about security and those who already know to operate with less obstacles... yay for politicians who can probably barely use email making app dev laws!!...
then why are we paying them as if they just graduated from janitor school? think i'm joking? I recently left my career as a structural engineer to do software QA because the pay and benefits were SO much better....
yeah there have a number of tears shed on the eve forums over this decision since they announced it for those very reasons. even an amount of heated/retarded debate as to whether the connection of the two networks would open the servers to security risks....
plus, why wait for the watered down version that's coming "after this break" (for the 4th break in a row...) when i can just read it on line and be done with it? why listen to people screech at each other about their opinions on whatever the hot topic is today when i could just come read a forum? not only does a forum not hurt my ears, but it provides links to resources, many more views and i can even add my own!...
lastly, if companies can't adapt to changes they deserve to fail. i'm more than certain that there are ways for "big news" to make this work in their favor. they just need to stop trying to fight it...
Slashdot Mirror
they make it clear on their accounts that they are members of such groups. i would imagine that they have private accounts that google doesn't know about.
most of their recent actions with twitter et al have been a matter of PR - to get the public on board with what they are about. which was exactly the accounts that got banned by google+.
personally i can't believe that google of all organizations would do this. short of pressure from gov entities i suppose. and the creation of a social network that is NOT geared for tracking you seems like a good idea. however, i'm not sure they can afford the bandwidth without either stealing it or finding some source of income for the site.
i can't imagine that the "my friend has been hacked" button will last. I would imagine that the hackers would want to flood that button to obscure the real attacks. and it wouldn't be that hard to script....
ok, so you missed that "new Internet *infrastructure* to reduce the threat of cyberattacks" part AND that ".secure would require visitors to use certified credentials for entry and would do away with users' Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. " part of the article then. and yes, my bad, i said 5th amendment. i meant 4th :S
even still your point about simply having different legal rules is still part of my point - they already track everything you do when on their systems. and if given access to sensitive stuff they likely track more than just your network activity. so... that says to me that ALL they want is an excuse to perform unwarranted actions - phone taps, keyloggers, etc. considering that is about the only left that it would accomplish.
actually - in case you are serious... he suggested making a separate internet for things like financial data, confidential info, etc. and then using a .secure at the end of any domain names that are in this "separate internet" - and making it unavailable via normal internet browsing, and making it so that anyone who does go on to those address, whether permitted or not, automatically give up their 5th amendment. (and i doubt he is limiting this just in the realm of your "online privacy" )...
but here is the problem with that: if we wanted to be able to process CC payments or view bank statements online we (the general public) would need to be able to use a domain that at least had access to that information. which is already how it works. which was my point. and short of making it so that financial info isn't connected to the internet in any way, or to any other computer or network that is connected to the internet in *any* way, it will still be insecure. and having it connected in *any* way would make it effectively the SAME as things currently work.
for example: when you are at work, your computer's IP is not a public IP. you cannot go home and connect to that computer via it's IP. it is a private IP that only exists inside your companies network. but, if you were to connect to that network, like say via virtual private network connect, then you could connect via that IP address. so - your company has it's own little "internet" (typically called an intranet) already that can see the rest of the world via some singular server. if you unplug that server from its ISP then you could no longer google porn or get emails - but you would be secure (from the outside world at least). without said connections anything like this would be pointless. and if we are talking systems that are for, say, nuclear systems controls.... those are probably already are setup in a closed-circuit manner.
thus, the ONLY thing any of this guys rhetoric accomplishes is that whole "loss of 5th amendment rights" bit. comprende?
"a separate internet" nope - sounds nothing like it. unless you suppose they plan to make a network with NO internet access for secure data. not sure how that would work exactly. unless there were maybe only specific computers that internet activity was pushed through. then maybe yeah... that must be it. oh wait - that must be one of those internal network thingy's. but lets call it a "separate internet" for the sake of making sure it is different. ....
you seemed to have missed something - it's called sarcasm. you can read about it on http://www.google.com./ :p even more, i think you missed his entire second sentence. something about "profiling being frowned upon these days" ... can't be too sure though.
further, it is incorrect to say "because he is ethnic he is a criminal." and i don;t think *anyone* honestly thinks that. even those who say racist things aren't so niave to think that is a true statement. yet we always react out of a fear that we will be deemed as one of those people who DO think that is true.....
but the fact is that, statistically speaking, a neighborhood which is poorer than its surrounding neighborhoods has more crime than those surrounding neighborhoods. combine that with the unfortunate fact that those neighborhoods are typically higher in ethnic groups than others and you get this stupidity. whether there is a correlation there or not isn't really of any difference (if there is crime to fight there, then fight it) - but yet it is what everyone always focuses on in these matters. the fact of the matter is that police aren't concentrated in high-crime areas, as they should be, for fear of being accused of racial profiling - because of that potential correlation between income and ethnicity. this is what the OP was getting at.
replying to myself FTW....
and further, as far as i understand, when working for a gov, or any such hi-risk, institution you already DO sign away your right to privacy. they monitor all of your computer activities, often track you personally, and will survey your personal life as well. so what would formally telling people that "by going to this web address you are forfeiting your rights to privacy" accomplish? sounds like a setup for yet another loop-hole for them to be able to perform warrant-less activities.
you mean... like some kind of internal network? with some sort of DMZ that separates it from the rest of the interweb? wow, i bet those gov IT guys never thought of that! i wonder where this guy got his IT degree from... oh wait. lul. and "certified credentials" ? you mean none of those gov websites require credentials? and here i was impressed by all the recent hacking of those servers that had happened.... guess I should have taken a better look into the matter! and yes, changing those pesky interweb adresses from .gov to .secure will definitely make things *much* more secure.
on a more serious note, how about we start listening to people that actually know WTF they're talking about instead of putting everything into a title. do we really think that just because he was the head of the NSA that he has god-like mental abilities? no. more than likely he simply has a quicker wit than most, a family with money/political ties and the ability kiss anything - no matter how brown it is.
i'm *not* a db guy,(actually a software-development-platform QA guy... ) but i've dealt with a large variety of them, and oracle is the odd-ball by far. not MySQL. MySQL to Oracle would be a nightmare - but worth the performance benefits. MySQL to near anything else would be comparatively simple. but if FB plans to do it right, they will go with oracle. its not like they can't afford the investment....
as in windows m.e.? lets not get too crazy....
IMO it has more to do with our military advertising than anything. the military gets to review all movies etc as part of the MPAA rating and toss in their 2 cents. and if we condition our children to be okay with violence then maybe they'll be more likely to be a good soldier. not that i agree that this is a good thing.... just what i see as the main culprit. sex SHOULD be more widely accepted than decapitation. but what can we do?
someone just make a ccxml transfer app for the telco's that does 100% callrecording and uses an extensive grammar to trigger a 3rd leg in half-duplex to the feds on key words; like "liberal" or "obama" or "mary juana" .... or hell, lets just go with "hello" that should get the coverage they are looking for. ...
you give us one news story where any of the antisec movement has been geared for profit. one. pfft. and if by releasing everything to the general public as control of information, then yes, you are right there.
to the OP good post. keep up supporting these guys. they are literally the only ones *actually* defending our freedom at this point.
i think you missed something. hacking groups like this have been active for as long as it's been possible. so the question you should be asking is why is the media all of a sudden paying attention.
i would be prone to say that it is because these hackers have been very vocal and begging for this attention. but that is actually not really new either. so something else seems to be going on. i suppose its the mixture of them being politically motivated and massively successful in their hacking efforts (sony, the CIA, FBI, various gov's, HBGary, etc) or, it is simply because it focuses on an already hot topic - how can the gov control the internet, and how can the users stop them.
back to the direct point of the article; these attempts at our liberty are the very thing fueling this movement. i'm not sure the RIAA realizes what effects this may have. besides that, to me these hacks show that we CAN'T actually protect individuals from hackers via goverment policy - considering how we can't even manage protect individual sites - which would mean the crimes would still happen and the only thing left would be the side effect of " liberties lost. "
which doesn't sound like a *solution* to me.
http://www.flashuser.net/inspiration/30-creative-404-error-pages.html#more-3573 works
we better be careful... they may determine /. as an illegal tool!
back when hacking/customizing XP was the thing i accidentally turned *EVERYTHING* black while trying to turn just the BG of the start menu black... and was able to remember undo the entire thing with just keyboard commands. starting with the windows key and using arrows to get through the start menu... i had no clue whether what i was selecting was correct, or even doing anything!
but yeah, had i not known how to navigate via keyboard i would have had to re format... its good stuff to know for sure.
ditto. wtf are they thinking? isn't it the goal of most gaming companies to make the extended play-ability a selling point? not make it so that after 10 hours or whatever the $60 you spent is gone...
but yeah, either way i definitely wont be buying this game, or *anything* from capcom for that matter.
during my stint as a structural engineer i found that coming across information that was beyond the basics (wind pressure, simple span beams, etc) was virtually impossible. try finding enough info on something like "parabolically haunched steel girders" or "fully tempered glass plate in edge compression" or "bi-directional catenary action (e.g. tension fabric)" via google to even make an educated opinion, much less actually calculate something. without forking out several hundred bucks in the process that is.
/rant
i understand that these people need to be able to make a profit, but i have something like 100 $100-$300 books in my personal library; and the fact that this still wasn't nearly enough to do everything i've needed to so is a problem in my eyes.
further, now that i'm in programming i find that 80% of what i need i can find online. and of the remainder a good portion can be solved by posting in a forum. the rest ends with me getting a book to further general knowledge about some topic. this is how it ought to be. it the very thing that has caused tech to blossom the way it has; and if anything it has ended in MORE money for that industry. not less.
here's an idea - stop charging so much for simple information and maybe engineers can start making the money they deserve.
this.
""" To put this in a concrete context, games of chess are not won by dint of reasoning alone; they are won by the ability to imagine what your opponent's reasoned responses to your proposed set of moves might be. """ uh.. wouldn't that still be "reasoning" ? sure imagination and reason are different - but if in this case it would appear the imagination is merely a tool for the reasoning to be performed... so, still reasoning.
i mean, that's where it all originates from in the first place! what about command prompts? most hacking wouldn't possible be possible without those. but then again.. neither would my job... ...
besides, most of these tools double as IT and development aids (e.g. wireshark). further, what a few people use for malicious attacks other people use to understand where the loopholes are and close them. all this would accomplish is fewer people being educated about security and those who already know to operate with less obstacles...
yay for politicians who can probably barely use email making app dev laws!!
then why are we paying them as if they just graduated from janitor school?
think i'm joking? I recently left my career as a structural engineer to do software QA because the pay and benefits were SO much better....
yeah there have a number of tears shed on the eve forums over this decision since they announced it for those very reasons. even an amount of heated/retarded debate as to whether the connection of the two networks would open the servers to security risks....
i'm with ya 100%
...
plus, why wait for the watered down version that's coming "after this break" (for the 4th break in a row...) when i can just read it on line and be done with it?
why listen to people screech at each other about their opinions on whatever the hot topic is today when i could just come read a forum? not only does a forum not hurt my ears, but it provides links to resources, many more views and i can even add my own!
lastly, if companies can't adapt to changes they deserve to fail. i'm more than certain that there are ways for "big news" to make this work in their favor. they just need to stop trying to fight it...