Now, Anonymous should be finding these 5-6 guys, discovering their true identities and sending that information to the CIA while knocking them off the internet and locking them out of their account (while turning over their account credentials to the CIA as well.)
Yes, yes, no, no and yes.
Finding the accounts is not useful if they can't be monitored and monitoring isn't useful if the supposed ISIS user been locked out of the account.
Also, there's the question of how sure Anon can be about any given user, not to mention the question of potential for abuse by Anon, anyone claiming to be Anon or the police themselves.
From your referenced article "The ISIS economy and its fighters predominantly rely on the production and sale of seized energy assets"
Which begs the question of why they still have ANY drilling or production capability at this point, as rigs and refineries are stable, visible targets.
"Grossing as much as $40 million or more over the past two years, ISIS has accepted funding from government or private sources in the oil-rich nations of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait—and a large network of private donors, including Persian Gulf royalty, businessmen and wealthy families."
Which leads to another question of if we know this, we do we not take action against said donors and the countries allowing it to happen (Qatar and Kuwait, according to the same article)?
Sorry - autocorrect on a phone is a pain. I would have thought the editors would pick that up (and I should have too). This is why I shouldn't submit stories from my phone, in bed.
Then again, maybe the slashdot guys approved it from a phone, in bed, too!:-P
Heh it's me that should apologize...I just couldn't resist:-)
"given that there has been no formal declaration of war against these people, I would be inclined to think it illegal, yes."
I was thinking about this and I think that we can't actually declare war because we do not want to recognize "IS" as a country, and we can't declare war if there is no country to declare war against.
That being said I agree that there should still be congressional approval of this war against a non-state.
The 'facts' are not always truth, and the reviewers have their own bias. Here is a great example, the War of 1812. In the US they teach how England was the belligerent and that it was a war between the US and England, defending the US from England. In Canada, they teach that the US was the aggressor. In other parts of the world they teach that the US sided with Napoleon and include the war as part of the Napoleonic wars. Which is truth?
"...solution for cloud storage data security. All of your data is encrypted, and the cloud storage provider doesn’t have the key, only you, the user does. In other words, the provider has “zero knowledge” of the encryption key." http://www.idganswers.com/ques...
If you only fight them in a war like scenario then this is correct. However, we can only win when we stop to produce young people who become willingly the tools of IS. Therefore, we have to cut the communication links of IS. And we must help those young men in school, university, and society to find another way to get recognition in life.
Has to be both methods - monitor the known communications channels to identify 'at risk' youth and then help them find a different path or if they choose to stay on that path, help them meet their god face to face.
I do not support any government that indiscriminately kills civilians (ie Israel) and I hold my own accountable when accidents happen.
Israel doesn't make a practice of indiscriminately killing civilians, and the "investigations" making those sorts of accusations tend to have "issues".
If you were right about Israel, they'd do exactly what you say the other side would do. And yet they very demonstrably do NOT do that, even when they are attacked by people indiscriminately attacking them with hundreds of rockets.
They do, actually - just look at how many children are killed each time Israel re-invades the occupied territories; Rockets kill 15 Israelis and the Israel kills 1500 Palestinians, hundreds of them children.
There is a big difference between waging war against military targets, making a great effort to target them intelligently to minimize civilian casualties...and deliberately targeting civilians.
A distinction that is unfortunately lost when you're on the receiving end. If someone kills your family do you think it'll really matter to you if the killer then shouts "Yay!" or "Oops, my bad!". Either way you're likely to support any political party, army or terrorist group that promises revenge.
Oh I agree that it doesn't matter to them - but it matters very much to me. I would not support a war deliberately targeting civilians, but I do support a war against those who do which is the case here.
"But as long as civilians are being killed either way, saying that we're being less bad than we could be is mostly nonsense to make our citizens feel better about themselves." If you are working on something and you hit your partner in the face because your hand slipped off the tool you are using, this is different than if you punch them in the face.
What do you suggest? That we wage war only without the possibility of killing civilians? That we don't wage war at all? Neither is possible.
"You presume much, and overestimate our ability to conduct mass murder." Tell it to the Japanese.
"But there's not a lot of moral advantage in only killing as many civilians as we think we can get away with." You say this as if we intentionally kill civilians, which we do not.
"If war is a continuation of politics with other means, then we need to consider political objectives before military ones, and those don't seem to be well served by bombing." Please feel free to go to IS territory and reason with them. Once they agree with you, then I will also agree with you. As they will probably cut your head off just because you are not their brand of muslim this conversation will resolve itself.
"We're not trying to control a strategic objective or destroy a large army; that we have the ability to bomb arbitrary targets does not mean that playing whack-a-mole in the desert is a good idea." Here I actually agree with you. I think that overwhelming force is going to be the only possible solution here - to utterly remove the enemy's ability to wage war of any sort.
"I don't think it's unreasonable to try to repair our faults even if they are not technically illegal, but given that there has been no formal declaration of war against these people, I would be inclined to think it illegal, yes." Agreed that it should be declared.
That being said this is a war that I support because I believe that we have no choice - that these people will continue to wage war on us whether we wage war on them or not. That if we were to suddenly stop the war against them, they would consolidate their territory and then expand, continuing their religious war and killing and destroying anyone and any culture that they do not approve of.
There is a big difference between waging war against military targets, making a great effort to target them intelligently to minimize civilian casualties...and deliberately targeting civilians.
Not if you're a civilian casualty. How are they even supposed to distinguish between a military accident and a deliberate act of violence? Do we issue an apology afterwards? Pay reparations? Try, convict, and sentence the offenders? Or do we call every military-age male a combatant in order to pretend our bombing campaign is just and legal?
Considering every military-age male to be a combatant gives them two choices: become a refugee, or take up arms in self-defense. Not only are you not holding anyone accountable (to anything more consequential than your bad opinion), you don't even know what's being done. Our hands are clean because we defined "dirty" in such a way that it doesn't apply to us.
Whether they know that they are not being deliberately targeted or not is irrelevant (I agree not from their perspective but from ours). The point that I'm trying to make is that in once case civilians are accidentally killed and in the other they are deliberately targeted.
As I said in another post, if we didn't care about civilians we could end this war very quickly by bombing the entire area to glass - something that I daresay IS would do to us if they could.
So yes, there is a very real difference.
As far as apologies and reparations...are you taking the position that our bombing what we believe to be IS positions is somehow illegal?
Options for humans traveling outside of our solar system are what?
Some kind of FTL travel Immortal crew Prolonged stasis Generations of crew
Not looking good for humans at this point.
Frozen sperm and eggs with robotic 'nurses' doesn't seem impossible to me.
And why not some technology that we don't have yet?
"Forever" is a very long time, considering that we can't envision the tech that will appear a couple of hundred years from now so saying that we will never get past mars seems a bit stupid to me.
So when we get bombed it's terrorism but when we bomb them and kill innocents it's not? I don't think we're quite as 'white' as we claim to be.
There is a big difference between waging war against military targets, making a great effort to target them intelligently to minimize civilian casualties...and deliberately targeting civilians.
I do not support any government that indiscriminately kills civilians (ie Israel) and I hold my own accountable when accidents happen.
If we wanted to end this war quickly we could carpet bomb that entire part of the world into non-existence - which is what ISIS would do to us, given half a chance, and yet we do not - and THAT is the difference between our sides.
So the view of "morons" is that ISIS is dangerous?
The view of "morons" is that the world is broken down into the simple black and white camps of the good guys (us, obviously) and the bad guys (anyone deliberately inflicting maximum civilian casualties.)
It's irrelevant (at least for voice) as providers have already or are in the process of moving away from the voice billing model and towards the data billing model where people pay for data but not, in most cases, for voice.
If there's been a lack of investment in pure voice infra this move to data only billing would be the reason.
Wake me when vendors actually agree on a common way of drawing the required power from the USB chargers. Sure there's a standard published but when will vendors actually follow the current standard, or in the case of Apple follow any standard at all.
Of course this is completely deliberate of Apple to oblige people to buy their cables/chargers regardless of the USB standard - so they will never 'agree' and you will stay asleep forever.
It's an attack on a special privilege only granted to religious people. If everyone could wear whatever headgear they wanted, we wouldn't be having this argument. The church of the FSM isn't making fun of your or anyone else's beliefs, it's just making sure that if the government recognizes one of them it must recognizes all of them as equally valid. That the government got no right to say that your religion is "true" so you can wear your headgear and my religion is "false" so I can't, or that you can teach your religious beliefs about the creation of the universe or the human race but I can't. I know you have faith in your religion, here's a newsflash: So does every other religious person. Maybe you as a person can dismiss everyone else's beliefs. But as a society with freedom of religion, it can't. Even when they don't comply with your ideas of what a religious conviction should look like.
At what point do you draw the line?
You cannot control someone's belief. They are therefore free to believe whatever religion they choose and the clothing they wear will not limit this in any way.
They are not free to kill people in the name of that religion, so there is a line drawn somewhere - it's just a question of where we choose to draw the line.
Slashdot Mirror
Free lunch, on site gyms... are all about keeping you at work longer, not going out to lunch, meeting a woman...
Because women don't eat lunch or go to gyms, presumably? :-D
Now, Anonymous should be finding these 5-6 guys, discovering their true identities and sending that information to the CIA while knocking them off the internet and locking them out of their account (while turning over their account credentials to the CIA as well.)
Yes, yes, no, no and yes.
Finding the accounts is not useful if they can't be monitored and monitoring isn't useful if the supposed ISIS user been locked out of the account.
Also, there's the question of how sure Anon can be about any given user, not to mention the question of potential for abuse by Anon, anyone claiming to be Anon or the police themselves.
From your referenced article "The ISIS economy and its fighters predominantly rely on the production and sale of seized energy assets"
Which begs the question of why they still have ANY drilling or production capability at this point, as rigs and refineries are stable, visible targets.
"Grossing as much as $40 million or more over the past two years, ISIS has accepted funding from government or private sources in the oil-rich nations of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait—and a large network of private donors, including Persian Gulf royalty, businessmen and wealthy families."
Which leads to another question of if we know this, we do we not take action against said donors and the countries allowing it to happen (Qatar and Kuwait, according to the same article)?
Sorry - autocorrect on a phone is a pain. I would have thought the editors would pick that up (and I should have too). This is why I shouldn't submit stories from my phone, in bed.
Then again, maybe the slashdot guys approved it from a phone, in bed, too! :-P
Heh it's me that should apologize...I just couldn't resist :-)
I can't see why they'd worry about it; it had no effect whatsoever in this case.
Of course it did - how do you think the French police found them?
"given that there has been no formal declaration of war against these people, I would be inclined to think it illegal, yes."
I was thinking about this and I think that we can't actually declare war because we do not want to recognize "IS" as a country, and we can't declare war if there is no country to declare war against.
That being said I agree that there should still be congressional approval of this war against a non-state.
The 'facts' are not always truth, and the reviewers have their own bias. Here is a great example, the War of 1812. In the US they teach how England was the belligerent and that it was a war between the US and England, defending the US from England. In Canada, they teach that the US was the aggressor. In other parts of the world they teach that the US sided with Napoleon and include the war as part of the Napoleonic wars. Which is truth?
All of the above?
but the terrorists in Paris seems to have used plain old unencrypted SMS, in French no less.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
Which is a mistake the probably won't make twice.
"...solution for cloud storage data security. All of your data is encrypted, and the cloud storage provider doesn’t have the key, only you, the user does. In other words, the provider has “zero knowledge” of the encryption key."
http://www.idganswers.com/ques...
Damn those aggregated customers they can be so....aggregating!
If you only fight them in a war like scenario then this is correct. However, we can only win when we stop to produce young people who become willingly the tools of IS. Therefore, we have to cut the communication links of IS. And we must help those young men in school, university, and society to find another way to get recognition in life.
See also: http://www.theguardian.com/pro...
You say young men but it isn't only men.
Has to be both methods - monitor the known communications channels to identify 'at risk' youth and then help them find a different path or if they choose to stay on that path, help them meet their god face to face.
It's probably more useful overall to leave such things alone and monitor them for intel rather than shutting them down.
We could change it to infosex...that aught to get everyone more interested...
I do not support any government that indiscriminately kills civilians (ie Israel) and I hold my own accountable when accidents happen.
Israel doesn't make a practice of indiscriminately killing civilians, and the "investigations" making those sorts of accusations tend to have "issues".
Goldstone: You Cannot Undo a Slander
Israel’s Heroic Restraint
Scandal Rocks the U.N.
The U.N.’s Grotesque Gaza Inquiry
Another Effort to Destroy Israel
Of course they have issues as Israel has an extremely strong propaganda arm.
One might as well argue that the Israeli reports saying otherwise 'have issues'.
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you were right about Israel, they'd do exactly what you say the other side would do. And yet they very demonstrably do NOT do that, even when they are attacked by people indiscriminately attacking them with hundreds of rockets.
They do, actually - just look at how many children are killed each time Israel re-invades the occupied territories; Rockets kill 15 Israelis and the Israel kills 1500 Palestinians, hundreds of them children.
There is a big difference between waging war against military targets, making a great effort to target them intelligently to minimize civilian casualties...and deliberately targeting civilians.
A distinction that is unfortunately lost when you're on the receiving end.
If someone kills your family do you think it'll really matter to you if the killer then shouts "Yay!" or "Oops, my bad!".
Either way you're likely to support any political party, army or terrorist group that promises revenge.
Oh I agree that it doesn't matter to them - but it matters very much to me. I would not support a war deliberately targeting civilians, but I do support a war against those who do which is the case here.
"But as long as civilians are being killed either way, saying that we're being less bad than we could be is mostly nonsense to make our citizens feel better about themselves."
If you are working on something and you hit your partner in the face because your hand slipped off the tool you are using, this is different than if you punch them in the face.
What do you suggest? That we wage war only without the possibility of killing civilians? That we don't wage war at all?
Neither is possible.
"You presume much, and overestimate our ability to conduct mass murder."
Tell it to the Japanese.
"But there's not a lot of moral advantage in only killing as many civilians as we think we can get away with."
You say this as if we intentionally kill civilians, which we do not.
"If war is a continuation of politics with other means, then we need to consider political objectives before military ones, and those don't seem to be well served by bombing."
Please feel free to go to IS territory and reason with them. Once they agree with you, then I will also agree with you. As they will probably cut your head off just because you are not their brand of muslim this conversation will resolve itself.
"We're not trying to control a strategic objective or destroy a large army; that we have the ability to bomb arbitrary targets does not mean that playing whack-a-mole in the desert is a good idea."
Here I actually agree with you. I think that overwhelming force is going to be the only possible solution here - to utterly remove the enemy's ability to wage war of any sort.
"I don't think it's unreasonable to try to repair our faults even if they are not technically illegal, but given that there has been no formal declaration of war against these people, I would be inclined to think it illegal, yes."
Agreed that it should be declared.
That being said this is a war that I support because I believe that we have no choice - that these people will continue to wage war on us whether we wage war on them or not. That if we were to suddenly stop the war against them, they would consolidate their territory and then expand, continuing their religious war and killing and destroying anyone and any culture that they do not approve of.
There is a big difference between waging war against military targets, making a great effort to target them intelligently to minimize civilian casualties...and deliberately targeting civilians.
Not if you're a civilian casualty. How are they even supposed to distinguish between a military accident and a deliberate act of violence? Do we issue an apology afterwards? Pay reparations? Try, convict, and sentence the offenders? Or do we call every military-age male a combatant in order to pretend our bombing campaign is just and legal?
Considering every military-age male to be a combatant gives them two choices: become a refugee, or take up arms in self-defense. Not only are you not holding anyone accountable (to anything more consequential than your bad opinion), you don't even know what's being done. Our hands are clean because we defined "dirty" in such a way that it doesn't apply to us.
Whether they know that they are not being deliberately targeted or not is irrelevant (I agree not from their perspective but from ours).
The point that I'm trying to make is that in once case civilians are accidentally killed and in the other they are deliberately targeted.
As I said in another post, if we didn't care about civilians we could end this war very quickly by bombing the entire area to glass - something that I daresay IS would do to us if they could.
So yes, there is a very real difference.
As far as apologies and reparations...are you taking the position that our bombing what we believe to be IS positions is somehow illegal?
Options for humans traveling outside of our solar system are what?
Some kind of FTL travel
Immortal crew
Prolonged stasis
Generations of crew
Not looking good for humans at this point.
Frozen sperm and eggs with robotic 'nurses' doesn't seem impossible to me.
And why not some technology that we don't have yet?
"Forever" is a very long time, considering that we can't envision the tech that will appear a couple of hundred years from now so saying that we will never get past mars seems a bit stupid to me.
So when we get bombed it's terrorism but when we bomb them and kill innocents it's not? I don't think we're quite as 'white' as we claim to be.
There is a big difference between waging war against military targets, making a great effort to target them intelligently to minimize civilian casualties...and deliberately targeting civilians.
I do not support any government that indiscriminately kills civilians (ie Israel) and I hold my own accountable when accidents happen.
If we wanted to end this war quickly we could carpet bomb that entire part of the world into non-existence - which is what ISIS would do to us, given half a chance, and yet we do not - and THAT is the difference between our sides.
So the view of "morons" is that ISIS is dangerous?
The view of "morons" is that the world is broken down into the simple black and white camps of the good guys (us, obviously) and the bad guys (anyone deliberately inflicting maximum civilian casualties.)
FTFY, moron.
It's irrelevant (at least for voice) as providers have already or are in the process of moving away from the voice billing model and towards the data billing model where people pay for data but not, in most cases, for voice.
If there's been a lack of investment in pure voice infra this move to data only billing would be the reason.
Wake me when vendors actually agree on a common way of drawing the required power from the USB chargers. Sure there's a standard published but when will vendors actually follow the current standard, or in the case of Apple follow any standard at all.
Of course this is completely deliberate of Apple to oblige people to buy their cables/chargers regardless of the USB standard - so they will never 'agree' and you will stay asleep forever.
It's an attack on a special privilege only granted to religious people. If everyone could wear whatever headgear they wanted, we wouldn't be having this argument. The church of the FSM isn't making fun of your or anyone else's beliefs, it's just making sure that if the government recognizes one of them it must recognizes all of them as equally valid. That the government got no right to say that your religion is "true" so you can wear your headgear and my religion is "false" so I can't, or that you can teach your religious beliefs about the creation of the universe or the human race but I can't. I know you have faith in your religion, here's a newsflash: So does every other religious person. Maybe you as a person can dismiss everyone else's beliefs. But as a society with freedom of religion, it can't. Even when they don't comply with your ideas of what a religious conviction should look like.
At what point do you draw the line?
You cannot control someone's belief. They are therefore free to believe whatever religion they choose and the clothing they wear will not limit this in any way.
They are not free to kill people in the name of that religion, so there is a line drawn somewhere - it's just a question of where we choose to draw the line.
The pasta strainer is obviously an atheist symbol.
If my Muslim wife went to the DMV wearing a burka would she be afforded the same rights? I doubt it.
The burka is not required by Islam.
http://www.quran-islam.org/art...