About what? If he says there's an investigation there is an investigation. About taking a stand and saying 'I'm not going to investigate this shit'? No.
I think this is totally logic, MS, Oracle and many other companies do not care about security or take way too long to release fixes...
Actually it is quite possible to be critical about Wikileaks having demands. In principle at least. In practice Wikileaks is being smeared and attacked all day long and if they do not correspond to the highest standards they are regarded as evil. That is not realistic,Wikileaks can be very valuable even if it is very flawed. There are plenty of flaws around with the other players as well but for some reason other standards apply there. What I would regard as sensible critique is that Wikileaks should try and stick to its core task: being the first step for whistleblowers to reach the public. They should try to limit their responsibility to that. To the extent possible they should avoid publishing themselves. It can be a plan B, but plan A, passing through journalism, should not be dropped even if it is problematic . They can release bugs to companies but don't necessarily have to take on responsibility for the bugs being fixed. So I think Assange is overstretching there. But that doesn't make him bad. It's more a disagreement about strategy.
I would fully agree though the main issue with the CIA is keeping them on a short leash. But if you think the problem is recent, this offers a better starting date : https://mises.org/blog/truman-... What the latest leak shows is that the CIA is diversifying more , increasing their reach, making them more independent. They don't have to ask the NSA for help, they've got their own departments. That is all about increasing power.
I did indeed assume you were thinking of Russia. It's not trivial to fool Wikileaks, but it's likely that it will happen to some extent(as in being fooled by the source but not by the data). Wikileaks is good at protecting the source but I'm not sure why someone who can defend himself wants to pass through wikileaks if the info is valid. Will it make a big difference compared to publishing through another channel?
The main worry of Wikileaks is that they get fed bad info in order to damage their credibility. There surely will be attempts at that. As they get strained more under the constant siege it is possible they may start making serious mistakes and errors of judgements. That's a plausible outcome. But then they're publishing false info and then it's likely others find out.
You can't blame people for being gullible either. What you're saying is what wikileaks is guilty of something until proven otherwise. That what they're doing is very suspicious because they're obviously bad guys. Wikileaks is communicating with many companies. Some of them collaborate with governments and deliberately leave security gaps open. It's a tricky environment to work in and there will be lawyers involved all the time. You can just as well say that if Wikileaks is doing something nasty some of the companies will expose the communication.
I don't expect Wikileaks to be saintly and I think it's not necessary for them to be above all criticism in order to be valuable. Checks and balances are important because there is no good guy that you can trust with too much power. And Wikileaks both has value in it, and is one of the guys you can't trust with too much power.
That doesn't mean I believe the criticism about Wikileaks. That's just a giant and very successful FUD campaign. For instance I disagree that they're being manipulated by Russia, there is no proof for it so why believe the claim? The article above is just part of it. Wikileaks is asking the companies to sign something. That must be bad! Just look at all the posts on here. No, that doesn't have to be bad. It can be about wikileaks being paranoid about their action being used against them somehow. It can be about requiring the company to commit to actually fixing the bug within a certain period.It could be a mediocre decision by Wikileaks. That would still not be reason to make a big fuss about it.
I see it this way. A vulnerability is found and an exploit is written. As time passes several things happen. The exploit gets distributed because of outsourcing and after a while there really are a lot of people who know about it. Other people also find out about the vulnerability. Some day software maker finds out and the bug is no longer zero day but the exploit will still work on unpatched systems so it sticks around until something much better replaces it.
As for the software company itself,I suspect most companies just take it as it comes. If they find out about a zero day bug they fix it and the CIA keeps silent. For some critical companies it may be different and the CIA may try to negotiate something, claiming nobody else will find out, or making an offer one cannot refuse. But knowing about a bug and not fixing it is complicated. It's not something you want people to find out and chances are they will. Knowing there is a bug but not investing in finding out is a bit easier. One only has limited resources.
Oh, I always thought he just misspoke. It made me imagine how great it would have been if he had misstepped and fallen on his face right then. Well, as long as they would have had sufficient sense of humor which is not likely.
The evolution from the elementary 'the machines are the designated enemy to beat' to 'really going for peace and coexistence with the machines' was rather remarkable really.
I didn't mind watching 2 and 3 , but I also resisted trying to find anything 'deep' in it. Clever, right, but in a streamofconsciousness kind of way with plenty of associations. The ease with which 'real people' were massacred without any second thought really ment you had to switch off your brain. In other movies at least there was an effort to claim 'yes but they were really bad'. Here they didn't even bother. Which may have been better or worse, YMMV.
I belong to that minority who loves to drive and has a reasonable set of skills and even I wouldn't mind an autopilot in a traffic jam. I wouldn't think yet about that far future where cars won't have controls. I can imagine areas though that enforce autopilots. Mostly though I think autopilot is a limited concept. The larger concept is that control happens at a higher level, even if it's just monitoring. We're rapidly moving towards a situation where every move is being monitored and where the second you exceed the speed limit, the system intervenes and it gets logged and sanctioned by the authorities and by your insurer.
What freedom? I think most people drive a car to get them to a certain destination when they want to. An automated drive can do that. Many people also want to be in control, at least most of the time. Automated drive may or may not allow for that. If the driver can control the automated drive it will be a welcome thing in the traffic jam or on a boring part of a long trip. It can even give more freedom: it can allow the driver to take the car while drunk, when suffering from occasional epileptic seizures (when you're not even allowed to drive in current conditions), when he wants to check email or when she's just extremely tired. So having the option is nice.
Then there's the intermediate case: you can drive manually most of the time but at some times and in some locations you have to switch to automated drive. These can feel like an acceptable tradeoff if it makes things go much more fluently.
So what makes automated drive a source of frustration? When you feel you're being treated as a child by authorities deciding everything will work much better if they take control as much as possible because they are grownups who know what they're doing and you can't be trusted. And in fact what you want is irrelevant because they have these numbers and that is all that matters. So they decide that everything is better if they lead your life instead of you. Will that happen? Guess so. But automated drive will start as a useful option.
I've heard of another rule. One third "it's a job", one third "I want to do good" and one third "I want to dominate". That's one reason never to give in to the idea of 'we are here to protect you so give us more power'. The other reason is that even if they're all good guys, the system can still go bad. Note that in this case the prosecutor has gone bad. The police are just doing their job.
Now that's a point which is worth emphasising. Even with nuclear war(and i'm pessimistic enough to consider it likely in the long run) humanity is hard to wipe out completely, and it will remain easier to support a million people here than elsewhere. There's still something to be said for not putting everything in one basket though. The idea of moving away is ridiculous, the idea of spreading out is not.
I can think of more possibilities: the zero day bugs were already discovered independently and were already fixed when the CIA leaks were published. Less likely, Apple had agreed to delay fixing some bugs. More likely , Apple knew there were some zero day bugs the CIA was making use of but did not know which ones, and was not trying to find out.
I fully agree that the mere fact by itself that globalisation has made the categories more fuzzy, much less separate would require a major update of the rules. Only I think what's been going on in the last 15 years is of a different order. It's more in the neoliberal category of 'do whatever you want and take whatever money you need'. Now I've become a strong believer in checks and balances over time and I consider the current situation very unhealthy in that respect. The security apparatus simply has too much power now.
Seems there is another problem. Suppose you start from agencies with well defined responsibilities with their matching checks to control them(well, hypothetically, let's say 'better defined') The FBI is domestic but has its constraints. The NSA does hacking but has its constraints . The CIA does spying. Then if the CIA expands into the domestic front and into the hacking front without the constraints, (and the foreign intervention front as well, it could be said), you have a problem with unchecked power. The common response though is 'the CIA is defending us they don't need to be constrained.' Yeah right. The whole security apparatus has gotten completely out of hand.
I think this should be about priorities. Wikileaks is under fierce and persistent attack and highlighting/inflating their faults and making these the center of attention is part of that. You're agreeing Wikileaks has a value but your main theme is that it's flawed. I think it should be the other way round.
I think wikileaks is very valuable, very honest, and reliable. They contribute a lot in holding power to the light , and it is true that very often journalism is failing in this. They fill a void. I recall well that when Wikileaks was collaborating with newspapers, including the NYTimes , in what I think should be the appropriate approach, the journalists do the digesting, that the NYTimes main focus was doing a hatchet job on Assange instead.
That wikileaks is publishing themselves is a patch. One can be critical about that. I don't expect them to do an excellent job there, it could even be mediocre, but they get the priorities right in doing aggressive monitoring of power centers and showing you the data they are basing their statements on so you can bypass their own conclusions.
One can also be divided about the approach to reporting since specifically about bias and objectivity there are serious disagreements in journalism. The main conflict is between journalism which just digests and passes on stuff (that is the dominant strain) and journalism which is more activist and which directs attention. The latter gives a lot more room to opinion.
But you're criticizing the articles about Assange himself? That's like criticizing press releases for not being good journalism. That's a bad sense of priorities and a false equivalence.
It's especially funny that for the hacking story the CIA claims they're sure the russians are behind it, while they normally ask the NSA to look it up in their logs so they just would know. But the NSA just think it's plausible. That's as good as saying there's no sign of any proof.
Well you explain it better than I could. I have not talked to any North Koreans and cannot claim to know the subject well, I just find it trivially easy to get a better grasp of conflicts involving our enemies than the vast majority of people, even most experts,because of this simple aspect: try to understand the other's point of view. Not like it, not sympathize with it, just understand it. The general skill in that aspect is abysmal. So 'a cooldown is easy' is not really a good description because accepting the legitimacy of North Korea is not acceptable to us. Maybe I could say it's simple. It's simple to see that negotiations with the IAEA would be fruitless and that sanctions will be fruitless and that there are things that would work but we won't accept them. One can make a case for not accepting that option, but not even seeing it is incompetent.
The main thing to note is the russian pee story came up because some people sent out an order for a file with damaging information. The CIA went public with unverified claims that damaged an elected president. You can think so what, he's a dangerous nutcase, ok, but it's still unprecedented, and it's a sign that the CIA has become too powerful. And not only them. So you have this wacky situation where the president relies on cable network and Alex Jones (some popular conspiracy nut) and whatever for his info but on the other hand, it's also pretty hard now for him to trust the CIA.
I think the story about Russia-Trump ties is complete bullshit. It's propaganda. Sometimes propaganda makes use of truths, but it doesn't really care.
Slashdot Mirror
About what? If he says there's an investigation there is an investigation.
About taking a stand and saying 'I'm not going to investigate this shit'? No.
Actually it is quite possible to be critical about Wikileaks having demands. In principle at least. In practice Wikileaks is being smeared and attacked all day long and if they do not correspond to the highest standards they are regarded as evil. That is not realistic,Wikileaks can be very valuable even if it is very flawed. There are plenty of flaws around with the other players as well but for some reason other standards apply there.
What I would regard as sensible critique is that Wikileaks should try and stick to its core task: being the first step for whistleblowers to reach the public. They should try to limit their responsibility to that. To the extent possible they should avoid publishing themselves. It can be a plan B, but plan A, passing through journalism, should not be dropped even if it is problematic . They can release bugs to companies but don't necessarily have to take on responsibility for the bugs being fixed. So I think Assange is overstretching there. But that doesn't make him bad. It's more a disagreement about strategy.
I would fully agree though the main issue with the CIA is keeping them on a short leash. But if you think the problem is recent, this offers a better starting date : https://mises.org/blog/truman-...
What the latest leak shows is that the CIA is diversifying more , increasing their reach, making them more independent. They don't have to ask the NSA for help, they've got their own departments. That is all about increasing power.
I did indeed assume you were thinking of Russia.
It's not trivial to fool Wikileaks, but it's likely that it will happen to some extent(as in being fooled by the source but not by the data). Wikileaks is good at protecting the source but I'm not sure why someone who can defend himself wants to pass through wikileaks if the info is valid. Will it make a big difference compared to publishing through another channel?
The main worry of Wikileaks is that they get fed bad info in order to damage their credibility. There surely will be attempts at that. As they get strained more under the constant siege it is possible they may start making serious mistakes and errors of judgements. That's a plausible outcome. But then they're publishing false info and then it's likely others find out.
You can't blame people for being gullible either. What you're saying is what wikileaks is guilty of something until proven otherwise. That what they're doing is very suspicious because they're obviously bad guys. Wikileaks is communicating with many companies. Some of them collaborate with governments and deliberately leave security gaps open. It's a tricky environment to work in and there will be lawyers involved all the time. You can just as well say that if Wikileaks is doing something nasty some of the companies will expose the communication.
I don't expect Wikileaks to be saintly and I think it's not necessary for them to be above all criticism in order to be valuable. Checks and balances are important because there is no good guy that you can trust with too much power. And Wikileaks both has value in it, and is one of the guys you can't trust with too much power.
That doesn't mean I believe the criticism about Wikileaks. That's just a giant and very successful FUD campaign.
For instance I disagree that they're being manipulated by Russia, there is no proof for it so why believe the claim?
The article above is just part of it. Wikileaks is asking the companies to sign something. That must be bad! Just look at all the posts on here. No, that doesn't have to be bad. It can be about wikileaks being paranoid about their action being used against them somehow. It can be about requiring the company to commit to actually fixing the bug within a certain period.It could be a mediocre decision by Wikileaks. That would still not be reason to make a big fuss about it.
I see it this way. A vulnerability is found and an exploit is written. As time passes several things happen. The exploit gets distributed because of outsourcing and after a while there really are a lot of people who know about it. Other people also find out about the vulnerability. Some day software maker finds out and the bug is no longer zero day but the exploit will still work on unpatched systems so it sticks around until something much better replaces it.
As for the software company itself,I suspect most companies just take it as it comes. If they find out about a zero day bug they fix it and the CIA keeps silent. For some critical companies it may be different and the CIA may try to negotiate something, claiming nobody else will find out, or making an offer one cannot refuse. But knowing about a bug and not fixing it is complicated. It's not something you want people to find out and chances are they will. Knowing there is a bug but not investing in finding out is a bit easier. One only has limited resources.
Maybe we could keep the chickens alive and just let regrow the parts we slice off? It would be more humane!
Ok, that might depend on your definition of humane..
I suppose counter-conspiracists would just point to the last line in the article.
Oh, I always thought he just misspoke. It made me imagine how great it would have been if he had misstepped and fallen on his face right then. Well, as long as they would have had sufficient sense of humor which is not likely.
That's it mostly yes. A sequel to a successful movie is regarded a fairly safe investment so it tends to get the funds over the other proposals.
The evolution from the elementary 'the machines are the designated enemy to beat' to 'really going for peace and coexistence with the machines' was rather remarkable really.
I didn't mind watching 2 and 3 , but I also resisted trying to find anything 'deep' in it. Clever, right, but in a streamofconsciousness kind of way with plenty of associations. The ease with which 'real people' were massacred without any second thought really ment you had to switch off your brain. In other movies at least there was an effort to claim 'yes but they were really bad'. Here they didn't even bother. Which may have been better or worse, YMMV.
I belong to that minority who loves to drive and has a reasonable set of skills and even I wouldn't mind an autopilot in a traffic jam. I wouldn't think yet about that far future where cars won't have controls. I can imagine areas though that enforce autopilots.
Mostly though I think autopilot is a limited concept. The larger concept is that control happens at a higher level, even if it's just monitoring. We're rapidly moving towards a situation where every move is being monitored and where the second you exceed the speed limit, the system intervenes and it gets logged and sanctioned by the authorities and by your insurer.
What freedom? I think most people drive a car to get them to a certain destination when they want to. An automated drive can do that.
Many people also want to be in control, at least most of the time. Automated drive may or may not allow for that. If the driver can control the automated drive it will be a welcome thing in the traffic jam or on a boring part of a long trip. It can even give more freedom: it can allow the driver to take the car while drunk, when suffering from occasional epileptic seizures (when you're not even allowed to drive in current conditions), when he wants to check email or when she's just extremely tired. So having the option is nice.
Then there's the intermediate case: you can drive manually most of the time but at some times and in some locations you have to switch to automated drive. These can feel like an acceptable tradeoff if it makes things go much more fluently.
So what makes automated drive a source of frustration? When you feel you're being treated as a child by authorities deciding everything will work much better if they take control as much as possible because they are grownups who know what they're doing and you can't be trusted. And in fact what you want is irrelevant because they have these numbers and that is all that matters. So they decide that everything is better if they lead your life instead of you. Will that happen? Guess so. But automated drive will start as a useful option.
I've heard of another rule. One third "it's a job", one third "I want to do good" and one third "I want to dominate".
That's one reason never to give in to the idea of 'we are here to protect you so give us more power'.
The other reason is that even if they're all good guys, the system can still go bad. Note that in this case the prosecutor has gone bad. The police are just doing their job.
When the Chinese return they'll will finally show us footage of all the studios we built there to film the moon landings. For real.
Now that's a point which is worth emphasising. Even with nuclear war(and i'm pessimistic enough to consider it likely in the long run) humanity is hard to wipe out completely, and it will remain easier to support a million people here than elsewhere. There's still something to be said for not putting everything in one basket though. The idea of moving away is ridiculous, the idea of spreading out is not.
I can think of more possibilities: the zero day bugs were already discovered independently and were already fixed when the CIA leaks were published.
Less likely, Apple had agreed to delay fixing some bugs. More likely , Apple knew there were some zero day bugs the CIA was making use of but did not know which ones, and was not trying to find out.
I fully agree that the mere fact by itself that globalisation has made the categories more fuzzy, much less separate would require a major update of the rules. Only I think what's been going on in the last 15 years is of a different order. It's more in the neoliberal category of 'do whatever you want and take whatever money you need'. Now I've become a strong believer in checks and balances over time and I consider the current situation very unhealthy in that respect. The security apparatus simply has too much power now.
Seems there is another problem. Suppose you start from agencies with well defined responsibilities with their matching checks to control them(well, hypothetically, let's say 'better defined') The FBI is domestic but has its constraints. The NSA does hacking but has its constraints . The CIA does spying.
Then if the CIA expands into the domestic front and into the hacking front without the constraints, (and the foreign intervention front as well, it could be said), you have a problem with unchecked power. The common response though is 'the CIA is defending us they don't need to be constrained.' Yeah right. The whole security apparatus has gotten completely out of hand.
I think this should be about priorities. Wikileaks is under fierce and persistent attack and highlighting/inflating their faults and making these the center of attention is part of that. You're agreeing Wikileaks has a value but your main theme is that it's flawed. I think it should be the other way round.
I think wikileaks is very valuable, very honest, and reliable. They contribute a lot in holding power to the light , and it is true that very often journalism is failing in this. They fill a void.
I recall well that when Wikileaks was collaborating with newspapers, including the NYTimes , in what I think should be the appropriate approach, the journalists do the digesting, that the NYTimes main focus was doing a hatchet job on Assange instead.
That wikileaks is publishing themselves is a patch. One can be critical about that. I don't expect them to do an excellent job there, it could even be mediocre, but they get the priorities right in doing aggressive monitoring of power centers and showing you the data they are basing their statements on so you can bypass their own conclusions.
One can also be divided about the approach to reporting since specifically about bias and objectivity there are serious disagreements in journalism. The main conflict is between journalism which just digests and passes on stuff (that is the dominant strain) and journalism which is more activist and which directs attention. The latter gives a lot more room to opinion.
But you're criticizing the articles about Assange himself? That's like criticizing press releases for not being good journalism. That's a bad sense of priorities and a false equivalence.
It's especially funny that for the hacking story the CIA claims they're sure the russians are behind it, while they normally ask the NSA to look it up in their logs so they just would know. But the NSA just think it's plausible. That's as good as saying there's no sign of any proof.
Well you explain it better than I could. I have not talked to any North Koreans and cannot claim to know the subject well, I just find it trivially easy to get a better grasp of conflicts involving our enemies than the vast majority of people, even most experts ,because of this simple aspect: try to understand the other's point of view. Not like it, not sympathize with it, just understand it. The general skill in that aspect is abysmal.
So 'a cooldown is easy' is not really a good description because accepting the legitimacy of North Korea is not acceptable to us. Maybe I could say it's simple. It's simple to see that negotiations with the IAEA would be fruitless and that sanctions will be fruitless and that there are things that would work but we won't accept them. One can make a case for not accepting that option, but not even seeing it is incompetent.
The main thing to note is the russian pee story came up because some people sent out an order for a file with damaging information. The CIA went public with unverified claims that damaged an elected president. You can think so what, he's a dangerous nutcase, ok, but it's still unprecedented, and it's a sign that the CIA has become too powerful. And not only them. So you have this wacky situation where the president relies on cable network and Alex Jones (some popular conspiracy nut) and whatever for his info but on the other hand, it's also pretty hard now for him to trust the CIA.
I think the story about Russia-Trump ties is complete bullshit. It's propaganda. Sometimes propaganda makes use of truths, but it doesn't really care.