As the court didn't even look into the case, whether the accusations have any basis remains in question. The fact that one side happens to have a political motivation in the matter does not disprove the accusations either. The university could easily clear its name by complying with the FOIA request, but for some reason it's reluctant to do so...
The problem is not that any single problem is impossible, but that certain problems are fundamentally at odds with one another such that solving certain pairs of problems are either impossible or nearly so.
True, that's the hard part, but there isn't a definite proof of its impossibility.
As for no verification, I meant the server won't tell you whether your vote was valid or not. But the list of votes can be made public without any breach of anonymity, so everyone will be able to check if their votes are there. I fail to see why vote changing is required for security, and why it would break anonymity. You can modify the system I described to timestamp each vote, and if someone votes multiple times (using the same private key) only the last vote will count, but I think in case of multiple votes per key it's better to just invalidate all the votes from that key.
Dr. Joan Costa-Font and Professor Mireia Jofre-Bonet of City University in London conducted the world’s first economic analysis of anorexia, consisting of 3,000 women between the ages of 15 to 34 in Europe and found that the eating disorder was mainly socially induced, and that the larger the peers’ body-mass, the lower the chance the individual will be anorexic
People not eating have a lower mass? Now that's a surprising result!
More to the point, I don't think this a huge enough problem requiring government regulation. Even more, I think anorexia is just a symtpom of low self-esteem, and if those women won't have a problem with their mass they would find another way of destroying themselves.
The point of online voting is not really ease of use (which may not even will be true in a thoroughly secure system), but that it's hell of a lot cheaper. This can reduce costs, allow for much more referendums, and even make direct democracy technically possible.
As I have said, not all problems are solved yet, but I haven't seen one that looks impossible. I will detail a system that solves the problems you mention (but has other problems, particularly being vulnerable to an insider. To be honest, the hard part is not just that you have to solve all the problems, but you have to solve all at once). First of all, you are right that physical presence is required, but it's enough to check it once in a lifetime. Before your first voting, you go to the office, ID yourself, and generate a few hundred keypairs (or as much as necessary to be able to participate in every vote in your lifetime), the public ones of which you submit to the office. For anonymity, every vote will have a different keypair associated with it, for example for the second vote you will have to use your second key. You encrypt your vote with your private key and then send it to the election server. It checks if your vote can be decrypted with any public key it has in store, and if it can, it will count it as legit. Thus, the votes will be recountable. And the server will give no verification, making it impossible for a third party to tell whether the vote was succesful, disabling fraud.
The problem is not with online voting itself, but with the current unsecure implementations. We simply don't have a working online election system yet. As in all fields, progress in cryptography requires time and hard work, but in my opinion with enough determination we can solve all problems in 5 years. Before that, online voting is lunacy. After it has been made secure, I will be all for it.
Wkileaks hasn't considered anything
on
Is Stratfor a "Joke"?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Wikileaks is a platform that hosts the leaks they are sent to. Posting them is in no way a political statement of them. From the site:
On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.
They don't exaggerate anything, merely state the contents of the leak.
Not really. They have their own websites, they communicate on the same irc channels, they use the same software and they launch coordinated DoS attacks. They are a well-defined group.
Idiots like these are the main reason Americans are so vulnerable to online threats. I have written about why cyberwar is a false analogy, so mostly I will just repeat myself:
There is no warfare, it's just a new method of espionage.
There is no mutually assured destruction: cybersabotage is anonymous, thus you can't counterattack, and even if you could, an all-out attack would still not be enough for complete destruction. Cyberespionage is a slow game, to seriously disrupt a target infrastructure you would have to research it for years. And while you theoretically could try to collect vulnerabilities and then exploit them all at the same time in a single strike, it's not really feasible as systems get upgrade from time to time, and you collection would get obsolete after a while. In this conflict you have to grab an opportunity when you have one, a single devastating strike isn't practical.
Also, destruction in this sense is a huge exaggeration, you can't do serious (compared to a real war) harm from the internet.
The source of an attack doesn't have to be a nation, it can be anyone with an internet connection, which combined with anonymity makes diplomacy worthless.
The only true method that works is to secure your fucking systems, and run regular whitehat tests (or, in their words, "cyberwargames") to identify possible vulnerabilities.
Javascript is easy, has a similar syntax to other C-like languages, no compiler/environment needed as a browser is enough, enables embedded scripting thus giving instant feedback. A good language for beginners.
Only a small fraction of the population is politically active enough to protest against something. Show me one protest that consisted of more than 50% of the population. That doesn't mean that the remaining 6120000 people would vote for the law in case of a referendum.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but in that case why bother submitting the patent?
If there is prior art the patent is invalid anyway, isn't it?
You can embed advertising into any shared content, TV style.
As the court didn't even look into the case, whether the accusations have any basis remains in question. The fact that one side happens to have a political motivation in the matter does not disprove the accusations either. The university could easily clear its name by complying with the FOIA request, but for some reason it's reluctant to do so...
The problem is not that any single problem is impossible, but that certain problems are fundamentally at odds with one another such that solving certain pairs of problems are either impossible or nearly so.
True, that's the hard part, but there isn't a definite proof of its impossibility.
As for no verification, I meant the server won't tell you whether your vote was valid or not. But the list of votes can be made public without any breach of anonymity, so everyone will be able to check if their votes are there. I fail to see why vote changing is required for security, and why it would break anonymity. You can modify the system I described to timestamp each vote, and if someone votes multiple times (using the same private key) only the last vote will count, but I think in case of multiple votes per key it's better to just invalidate all the votes from that key.
People not eating have a lower mass? Now that's a surprising result!
More to the point, I don't think this a huge enough problem requiring government regulation. Even more, I think anorexia is just a symtpom of low self-esteem, and if those women won't have a problem with their mass they would find another way of destroying themselves.
Isn't the point of scouts is to get kids out of the basement to move and do something?
The point of online voting is not really ease of use (which may not even will be true in a thoroughly secure system), but that it's hell of a lot cheaper. This can reduce costs, allow for much more referendums, and even make direct democracy technically possible.
As I have said, not all problems are solved yet, but I haven't seen one that looks impossible. I will detail a system that solves the problems you mention (but has other problems, particularly being vulnerable to an insider. To be honest, the hard part is not just that you have to solve all the problems, but you have to solve all at once). First of all, you are right that physical presence is required, but it's enough to check it once in a lifetime. Before your first voting, you go to the office, ID yourself, and generate a few hundred keypairs (or as much as necessary to be able to participate in every vote in your lifetime), the public ones of which you submit to the office. For anonymity, every vote will have a different keypair associated with it, for example for the second vote you will have to use your second key. You encrypt your vote with your private key and then send it to the election server. It checks if your vote can be decrypted with any public key it has in store, and if it can, it will count it as legit. Thus, the votes will be recountable. And the server will give no verification, making it impossible for a third party to tell whether the vote was succesful, disabling fraud.
The problem is not with online voting itself, but with the current unsecure implementations. We simply don't have a working online election system yet. As in all fields, progress in cryptography requires time and hard work, but in my opinion with enough determination we can solve all problems in 5 years. Before that, online voting is lunacy. After it has been made secure, I will be all for it.
Because the goal is not to build a secure system.
7/8, of course.
No, they went with XOR twice.
Wikileaks is a platform that hosts the leaks they are sent to. Posting them is in no way a political statement of them. From the site:
They don't exaggerate anything, merely state the contents of the leak.
When you are teaching noobs to code you shouldn't start with OOP. Classes are something for later, most likely in another language.
Not really. They have their own websites, they communicate on the same irc channels, they use the same software and they launch coordinated DoS attacks. They are a well-defined group.
Idiots like these are the main reason Americans are so vulnerable to online threats.
I have written about why cyberwar is a false analogy, so mostly I will just repeat myself:
Only if they rely on security through obscurity.
Why are the control algorithms of the ISS so secret?
Javascript is easy, has a similar syntax to other C-like languages, no compiler/environment needed as a browser is enough, enables embedded scripting thus giving instant feedback. A good language for beginners.
China is the same size as the US yet they manage to do both.
Unrelated: It's also interesting to note that after years of $8 fuel in Europe, they have adapted with small diesels.
We have adapted with bycicles and mass transit.
Who said Facebook isn't? Facebook has already been sued a number of times in the EU.
What about the people already owning a phone who are now affected by Google's change of the licence?
Only a small fraction of the population is politically active enough to protest against something. Show me one protest that consisted of more than 50% of the population. That doesn't mean that the remaining 6120000 people would vote for the law in case of a referendum.