As I have said before, encryption is not the answer. What the Swedish authorities wanted was the ability to monitor all communications as opposed to just airborne traffic.
Encryption or not, you are still exposing your entire network of contact through your text, email, phone and IM traffic.
That's what's interesting and that's what the swedish law is all about. The rest is just the shroud to get it through.
If you can build sociograms of every citizen, you have the information and power required to do almost anything.
"So, how would you like it if we told your wife to contacted last night?"
"I know contacted you. Either we put you at gitmo or you stay quiet"
If we could get enough people to encrypt their communications, such a flag would be worthless. They would have to break an enormous number of encrypted messages (which is hard work even for the biggest supercomputers in the world) just to find out that they are not relevant.
They don't HAVE to break encryption. As long as they store the endpoints of every conversation (which they have done for years, illegaly) they have all the candy they could want. Complete sociograms of every citizens is a very powerful tool when it comes to scaring people into submission. It's also a very good tool for implicating people for crimes they have not commited or have no intention of commiting.
The Swedish people are generally not very good at protesting (not like the French anyway) but nobody likes this and I expect the political climate in Sweden to change rapidly after this.
That's not neccesarily true. When it comes to morals it has been suggested (or maybe even proved) that there is a difference between the immediate percepted feeling of right and wrong and the one that comes through discussion. Mainly due to our built in difference between "us" and "them", i.e. we tend to not really care about others outside our own group. It's also why we laws stating that it's not okay to kill somone who murdered your daughter, even though your morals or conscience would not object.
So, conscience are good. So are laws sometimes. And sometimes they are both very messed up. But neither should exist alone.
It seems rather hypocritical for US politicians to criticize censorship in China when they refuse to do anything to stop censorshop right here in the US and often support it. I am referring to the lack of action being taken on net neutrality and prohibuting corporations from censoring the internet.
Chinese censorship reduces american corporate influence in China. Net neutrality reduces it in the US. No hypocrisy there.
At the time, Hitler wasn't considered all that bad in Germany. Until the late 1930's he wasn't considered too bad by most of the world.
One member of Swedish Parliament even thought Hitler deserved the nobel peace price! For some reason the same MP member withdrew his nomination sometime in 1939:)
Oh, and making the ball a slave to your will is very satisfying too.
Absolutely. We have a few games here at work (yay perks!). I've never really liked pinball, but once you get a hang of it it's a very good way to get your mind on something else when you've been focusing hard on some design issue for a while.
And yes, the feeling of having absolute control over the ball is really something. You can do pretty cool stuff when you.. well, make the flippers part an extended you (like every console or game control).
...but for many, I guess old evolutionary habits are (understandably) hard to break since certain behaviors are essentially embedded in our wetware...or simply because most men like the old way of things where they could tell women what to wear and do. Some countries fight harder than others to keep things this way. Some other even thinks that men and women are completely equal. How ridiculous huh?
The bombs that went of in Madrid were mobile detonated....what if after boarding the plane you don't suddenly "get a headache" just before take-off (of course they wont take off with your bag still in the hold)...
I've been delayed several times when the number of people on the plane doesn't match the number of checked passengers. That leads to a lengthy process where you have do debark and each person has to point out their bags before being allowed to board again. All bags not pointed at goes back to the terminal.
...or perhaps they should just stop selling 10Mb services to 672 people when they are all connected through a single T3 or so, which is actually what got them into this mess in the first place.
You neighbours internet connecting is coming to a crawl because they sell bandwith they don't have. To compare: you are essentially saying that it would be OK for an airline carrier to overbook 99% of the seats in every flight as long as they disclose that they "might be overbooked on certain flights". I can really say that I agree with you.
And also, the fact that it does die and allow light for it's seedlings would also the explain the high rate of evolution. My theory would be that if a high rate of evolution was required for survival, the plant would benefit by actually having a short lifespan.
him blogging about how to create fake boarding passes which doesn't seem the smartest thing to do if you are really concerned about security.
So first you praise him for exposing one security vulnerability, but damn him from exposing another? Why should he keep quiet when it's obvious how to create a fake boarding card?
I think it's very obvious why the chose this solution.
The retail chains has many of the record companies by the nutsack since a vast amount of records and movies are sold through these chains. Also, I would speculate that those chains would object to Sony-BMG selling the music to the consumer directly.
(I hate prison rape references as a matter of principle, but here's a guy that I really have a hard time mustering up *too* much sympathy for).
So much for principle then. I'm sorry, this is very off topic, but it really disturbs me when people state their principles only to deviate from them a second later. You don't get the bragging right for politically correct principles if you intend to BREAK them. You get them when you stay on your principle no matter what.
This is happening a lot lately with freedom of speech and democracy.
Mom #1: Have you vaccinated little Timmy for the cocaine? Mom #2: What? No, of course that, that would be... Mom #1: What? Do you WANT him to become a cocaine addict? Mom #2: No of course not, but... Mom #1: Then you really should. My little Lars* will never try cocaine now...
Parents will be happy to give this to their kids, ok?
I really find it disturbing that Slashdot heralds Europe as some panacea in the cell world. It's really not as bright and wonderful as you people try to make it out to be. Ultimately these corporate entities are out to make money within a certain set of rules. Cell phone locking, unfortunately, is a fact of life in the UK. When it isn't, its because of the way the contract is written.
In Sweden phone locking is not unusual, but far from the norm. Getting the phone and a contract separately is no problem whatsoever, which also means that there is a rather big market for used phones (as well as really cheap ones, i.e. $100 without a contract). Lot's of people, especially teenagers, use prepaid cards.
A few carriers (3 most notably) are trying to use (what I call) the American model, where you lock up the phone completely (different firmware etc) and sell software as services (I know for a fact that some of the software they lease to consumers are available for free if you would have same phone but original firmware). That's just not accepted or happening in Sweden. Sure, lots of people use 3, but the tech savvy crowds (or their friends and family) would probably not.
So while it may not be "panacea in the cell world", we seem to have a lot more freedom than other parts of the world.
Dan didn't break into anything. He simply set up a Tor node and watches the traffic passing. Most likely the passwords he sniffed out were not used by Embassy officials but by criminal elements who were using Tor to avoid being caught when using stolen credentials.
Also, he notified the involved embassies weeks before publishing the material.
I not saying it was a stupid move (I think it was) but the summary makes him look like a criminal which he is most certainly not. The Swedish police does not understand IT and obviously does whatever foreign countries tell them to do since our political leaders lacks spines.
Now comes a story about a maker of the software, which is used legitimately world-wide, and we are bashing them to smithereens over a (perfectly legal) sale to a rogue customer -- which may still be using it. Says the article: "if a connection found to exist in 2005 still holds."
Legal doesn't neccessary equal morally sound. Global corporations using child workers in vietnam doesn't neccessarily break the law.
Censoring software is not killing anybody -- it prevents (or makes difficult) an activity, that did not even exist during the revolutions of the (very recent) pre-Internet past...
Of course not. Neither was ratting on Anne Frank (if I am to continue my analogy). Someone else did the killing.
That's how far from new this concept is. Burma could have bought all the parts they need used on eBay.
The problem isn't the fact that this is new technology. The fact is that Websense or anyone else could have denied Burma the purchase. But they won't, because they don't care about anything else but profit. THAT is the problem.
If I hadn't ratted on Anne Franke, my neighbour would have anyway, right?
I can hold my Wii (no pun intended) in one hand and a disc containing a game in the other. But unless the creator of the game has payed Nintendo, I'm unable to play the game in a console for which I've paid. Why is that?
Copyright infringement is one thing, but limiting the use of something I've bought in order increase income in something else.
Do whatever you want with the pirates, but allow me to use what I've paid for damnit.
Slashdot Mirror
As I have said before, encryption is not the answer. What the Swedish authorities wanted was the ability to monitor all communications as opposed to just airborne traffic.
Encryption or not, you are still exposing your entire network of contact through your text, email, phone and IM traffic.
That's what's interesting and that's what the swedish law is all about. The rest is just the shroud to get it through.
If you can build sociograms of every citizen, you have the information and power required to do almost anything.
"So, how would you like it if we told your wife to contacted last night?"
"I know contacted you. Either we put you at gitmo or you stay quiet"
This is as disaster actually.
They don't HAVE to break encryption. As long as they store the endpoints of every conversation (which they have done for years, illegaly) they have all the candy they could want. Complete sociograms of every citizens is a very powerful tool when it comes to scaring people into submission. It's also a very good tool for implicating people for crimes they have not commited or have no intention of commiting.
The Swedish people are generally not very good at protesting (not like the French anyway) but nobody likes this and I expect the political climate in Sweden to change rapidly after this.
That's not neccesarily true. When it comes to morals it has been suggested (or maybe even proved) that there is a difference between the immediate percepted feeling of right and wrong and the one that comes through discussion. Mainly due to our built in difference between "us" and "them", i.e. we tend to not really care about others outside our own group. It's also why we laws stating that it's not okay to kill somone who murdered your daughter, even though your morals or conscience would not object.
So, conscience are good. So are laws sometimes. And sometimes they are both very messed up. But neither should exist alone.
Yes, it would be something like: 60% evolution deniers, 20% laywers and 1% scientists.
It seems rather hypocritical for US politicians to criticize censorship in China when they refuse to do anything to stop censorshop right here in the US and often support it. I am referring to the lack of action being taken on net neutrality and prohibuting corporations from censoring the internet.
Chinese censorship reduces american corporate influence in China. Net neutrality reduces it in the US. No hypocrisy there.
At the time, Hitler wasn't considered all that bad in Germany. Until the late 1930's he wasn't considered too bad by most of the world.
:)
One member of Swedish Parliament even thought Hitler deserved the nobel peace price! For some reason the same MP member withdrew his nomination sometime in 1939
Oh, and making the ball a slave to your will is very satisfying too.
Absolutely. We have a few games here at work (yay perks!). I've never really liked pinball, but once you get a hang of it it's a very good way to get your mind on something else when you've been focusing hard on some design issue for a while.
And yes, the feeling of having absolute control over the ball is really something. You can do pretty cool stuff when you.. well, make the flippers part an extended you (like every console or game control).
...but for many, I guess old evolutionary habits are (understandably) hard to break since certain behaviors are essentially embedded in our wetware ...or simply because most men like the old way of things where they could tell women what to wear and do. Some countries fight harder than others to keep things this way. Some other even thinks that men and women are completely equal. How ridiculous huh?
Hello typical American. Welcome to the rest of the world :)
Except that the CEO of said corporation could then manipulate this lemming mentality to his benefit, at the expense of the little guy (me).
:)
Welcome to capitalism, you must be new here
The bombs that went of in Madrid were mobile detonated....what if after boarding the plane you don't suddenly "get a headache" just before take-off (of course they wont take off with your bag still in the hold)...
:)
I've been delayed several times when the number of people on the plane doesn't match the number of checked passengers. That leads to a lengthy process where you have do debark and each person has to point out their bags before being allowed to board again. All bags not pointed at goes back to the terminal.
So yes, they actually thought of that
...or perhaps they should just stop selling 10Mb services to 672 people when they are all connected through a single T3 or so, which is actually what got them into this mess in the first place.
You neighbours internet connecting is coming to a crawl because they sell bandwith they don't have. To compare: you are essentially saying that it would be OK for an airline carrier to overbook 99% of the seats in every flight as long as they disclose that they "might be overbooked on certain flights". I can really say that I agree with you.
And also, the fact that it does die and allow light for it's seedlings would also the explain the high rate of evolution. My theory would be that if a high rate of evolution was required for survival, the plant would benefit by actually having a short lifespan.
him blogging about how to create fake boarding passes which doesn't seem the smartest thing to do if you are really concerned about security.
So first you praise him for exposing one security vulnerability, but damn him from exposing another? Why should he keep quiet when it's obvious how to create a fake boarding card?
I think it's very obvious why the chose this solution.
The retail chains has many of the record companies by the nutsack since a vast amount of records and movies are sold through these chains. Also, I would speculate that those chains would object to Sony-BMG selling the music to the consumer directly.
Hence this "compromise".
...before it gets 'dotted.
Coral here!
(I hate prison rape references as a matter of principle, but here's a guy that I really have a hard time mustering up *too* much sympathy for).
So much for principle then. I'm sorry, this is very off topic, but it really disturbs me when people state their principles only to deviate from them a second later. You don't get the bragging right for politically correct principles if you intend to BREAK them. You get them when you stay on your principle no matter what.
This is happening a lot lately with freedom of speech and democracy.
Mom #1: Have you vaccinated little Timmy for the cocaine?
:)
Mom #2: What? No, of course that, that would be...
Mom #1: What? Do you WANT him to become a cocaine addict?
Mom #2: No of course not, but...
Mom #1: Then you really should. My little Lars* will never try cocaine now...
Parents will be happy to give this to their kids, ok?
* I am from Sweden
Frankly I think trade with China is ultimately more constructive than China-bashing
Of course it is. China owns enough dollars to sink the US economy in a couple of hours.
I really find it disturbing that Slashdot heralds Europe as some panacea in the cell world. It's really not as bright and wonderful as you people try to make it out to be. Ultimately these corporate entities are out to make money within a certain set of rules. Cell phone locking, unfortunately, is a fact of life in the UK. When it isn't, its because of the way the contract is written.
In Sweden phone locking is not unusual, but far from the norm. Getting the phone and a contract separately is no problem whatsoever, which also means that there is a rather big market for used phones (as well as really cheap ones, i.e. $100 without a contract). Lot's of people, especially teenagers, use prepaid cards.
A few carriers (3 most notably) are trying to use (what I call) the American model, where you lock up the phone completely (different firmware etc) and sell software as services (I know for a fact that some of the software they lease to consumers are available for free if you would have same phone but original firmware). That's just not accepted or happening in Sweden. Sure, lots of people use 3, but the tech savvy crowds (or their friends and family) would probably not.
So while it may not be "panacea in the cell world", we seem to have a lot more freedom than other parts of the world.
Dan didn't break into anything. He simply set up a Tor node and watches the traffic passing. Most likely the passwords he sniffed out were not used by Embassy officials but by criminal elements who were using Tor to avoid being caught when using stolen credentials.
Also, he notified the involved embassies weeks before publishing the material.
I not saying it was a stupid move (I think it was) but the summary makes him look like a criminal which he is most certainly not. The Swedish police does not understand IT and obviously does whatever foreign countries tell them to do since our political leaders lacks spines.
That'll teach them! That's probably the equivalent of me having to fork up $2.
Now comes a story about a maker of the software, which is used legitimately world-wide, and we are bashing them to smithereens over a (perfectly legal) sale to a rogue customer -- which may still be using it. Says the article: "if a connection found to exist in 2005 still holds."
Legal doesn't neccessary equal morally sound. Global corporations using child workers in vietnam doesn't neccessarily break the law.
Censoring software is not killing anybody -- it prevents (or makes difficult) an activity, that did not even exist during the revolutions of the (very recent) pre-Internet past...
Of course not. Neither was ratting on Anne Frank (if I am to continue my analogy). Someone else did the killing.
That's how far from new this concept is. Burma could have bought all the parts they need used on eBay.
The problem isn't the fact that this is new technology. The fact is that Websense or anyone else could have denied Burma the purchase. But they won't, because they don't care about anything else but profit. THAT is the problem.
If I hadn't ratted on Anne Franke, my neighbour would have anyway, right?
Why?
I can hold my Wii (no pun intended) in one hand and a disc containing a game in the other. But unless the creator of the game has payed Nintendo, I'm unable to play the game in a console for which I've paid. Why is that?
Copyright infringement is one thing, but limiting the use of something I've bought in order increase income in something else.
Do whatever you want with the pirates, but allow me to use what I've paid for damnit.