Are you sure they are all pen & paper? I live in a 100% mail in voting state and can tell you there exists a serious vulnerability in it's system which could allow a nefarious person to swing an election from a single PC... in their (or parents) basement.
I'm thrilled to see the focus on the machines... but there is more to hacking an election than just them.
I wonder if anyone cares about the precedent that Republicans set by denying a sitting president to nominate a justice.
Except no one denied Obama the opportunity to nominate a justice. His name was Merrick Garland... and his nomination was rejected by the Senate via inaction... which is not a new concept... just ask John J. Crittenden, Edward King, John M. Read, Edward A. Bradford, William C. Micou, Jeremiah S. Black, & Henry Stanbery who all saw their SCOTUS nominations not receive a final up or down vote.
The more lawmakers abuse their powers the more corrupt and unsustainable the system becomes.
Does that mean you blame VP Joe Biden for creating the so called 'Biden rule' which was referenced by some in the refusal to act on the Garland nomination?
How can he pack the court when there was only one vacancy, which is now filled?
If Kennedy were to retire (as is rumored in some circles) it would have a similar net result.
However, I would hope that he would have the common sense to not pack the court and instead keep the balance - other than a few decisions, the current balance has served the country quite well.
You sound like a person with much fear that you may loose.
I've heard it argued that the recent Scalia seat vacancy, that the high court was crippled due to the low number of rulings they issued... that major cases could not be decided because of the 4-4 split... despite the fact that in the end, the court did eventually end up with an average number of rulings for the session.
Given this claim of a massive down-tick in the throughput of SCOTUS... all due to a single open seat... would not it be better to increase the number of seats so that even more writs of certiorari may be considered, accepted and ruled upon? We are now 'celebrating' the 80th anniversary of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.
I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm at least honest enough to see through so much of the BS of the #resistance.
Correct, but you can also get into interesting areas of the subsidiary being setup with binding corporate rules which can (in some cases) prevent the foreign entity from complying.
because you imagine that they serve as a deterrent. They do not.
Citation?
We are nearly 16 years since 9/11... and in all of that time we've not seen another organized effort to take down a plane from onboard, after passing through domestic security checks. Granted, re-inforced cockpit doors were something that should have been there for ages... but other than that... to what to you ascribe the lack of attempts?
The armed air marshals do that.
The threat of the Air Marshals are like the laundromat with a sign saying "guarded by a shotgun wielding owner 3 days a week". You don't know if the threat exists, if that many days is true, or if this is an on day or an off day.
If you are a baddie up to no good, why not grab some friends and roll the dice? Either as a group on a single plane (maybe you hit it lucky and landed on one without an Air Marshal), maybe you spread out and while many of you are foiled on board, some will be successful.
Why hasn't this happened yet?
Even in a world of secret police, when you don't know who around you may or may not be a spy for the government... a visible and in your face for is also visible to remind you of the power of the state... in case you forgot there may also be a hidden law enforcement agent in your midsts.
Except that in the cases I mentioned above, the passengers acted only after the device was (unsuccessful triggered), had we not been extraordinarily lucky (one due to a cancelled flight, the other due to waiting until the end of the flight, in both cases, retarding the effectiveness of their devices), the 'security' provided by the passengers wouldn't have mattered as they would already be dead.
True, 4-5 guys with box cutters isn't likely to take down a plane again... there are plenty of ways to do so still that passengers have no control over.
The TSA has caught a sum total of ZERO people intending to do harm to anyone and they will never catch someone either.
True, they haven't caught any bad guys going through yet... but have found plenty of weapons which people forgot. Why do you think they haven't caught any bad guys yet? Similarly, how have so few bad guys (zero IIRC) snuck through and carried out their evil deeds?
Richard Reid was on a Paris to Miami flight... Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was flying Amsterdam to Detroit, so again, not TSA.
The TSA servers no other purpose than to employee otherwise unemployable people.
Half true.
While no fan, I at least recognize the deterrent they serve.
We could declare planes to be 'gun/knife/bomb free zones', similar to most land based 'gun free' zones (ie schools)... but we know how well that works WRT the vast majority of mass shootings in this country being in a gun free zone which usually rely on the honor system.
As we saw in Manchester recently & Brussels last year (and time and time again elsewhere)... if you have a decent enough security perimeter which is a sufficient deterrent to easily carrying a serious weapon past, you move the prospective attack surface elsewhere, which is just what we've seen over the years.
Yes, the TSA is doing it's job, protecting the actual airplane and the people on it... even if they aren't the most competent and friendly when doing so.
The goal of the TSA is not only security theatrics but to increase human misery and suffering and discomfort in any and every way they can.
Completely agree, doubly so as since the first talk of a laptop ban for certain international flights I kept thinking that you could easily detect bomb components in a laptop using much of the existing mechanisms.
At least in the states, we are required to put the laptop in it's own tray which gives them a nice view of the internals. While there is an obscene # of individual makes, models & configurations... a good chunk should be able to be be pattern matched and given a pass. Sure, there will be differences WRT the same model having an SSD or HDD option, also machable. More/less embedded SSD or RAM, ditto I'd think.
There would still be outliers which would require a second look (not unlike what we have today), but then we also allow quite a few small bottles of liquids through which too could be added together in a larger empty container (which they wouldn't give a second look to when going through security), so there already exist ways to get small amounts through.
Except that when the president does it, it's legal, as they are the ultimate decider as to classification.
When one of the thousands of government employees opts to, the releases information is still classified despite being available... and so causing issues for those with clearances which prohibit them from reading/seeing info they are not cleared for.
And that is any different than today... how? The third-party doctrine would seem to apply, not unlike how Google or Microsoft can peruse your email or uploaded files looking for things they don't like (or think illegal and report it).
The short answer is "it depends"... not on drivers, but on the status of SecureBoot.
I believe since at last Windows Phone 8 they've been using it on phones, though unlike your average desktop/laptop PC running Windows on UEFI, you cannot turn off SecureBoot on phones (not unlike the original Surface & Surface 2).
No doubt because he, like many criminals, thought himself smarter than everyone else and so able to evade law enforcement.
You are right though, there are safer places to operate from, though many of the ones he might want to live in are likely to have friendly law enforcement and/or extradition treaties... just ask Kim Dotcom and Julian Assange.
When he was apprehended he was logged into his laptop... which tends to negate most encryption methods as short of using partially homomorphic encryption, you've got to decrypt your data to do most things with it.
Yeah, the government overstepping and allegedly using parallel construction to cover up illegal activity is no big deal, just appeal based on some bullshit.
Except Craigslist wasn't built (that we know of) with the primary intent of facilitating illegal activities, nor do they take deliberate steps to hide the identities of those doing such things, nor make available certain services in areas where it is illegal... and where the government has the ability to arrest & prosecute them.
Regarding Uber... do you mean in the sense that they are an unlicensed taxi in some jurisdictions? Or some may use their service during the commission of a crime (ie take an Uber to go rape someone)?
In either case, not much of a federal matter, and local municipalities tend to go after them for the prior (which rarely have criminal penalties associated), rather than the latter where they would be little different from a common carrier.
Whether you are up to legal or illegal things... practice good op-sec, as the contents of your insufficiently protected PC can often be used against you in ways you may not want.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure they are all pen & paper? I live in a 100% mail in voting state and can tell you there exists a serious vulnerability in it's system which could allow a nefarious person to swing an election from a single PC... in their (or parents) basement.
I'm thrilled to see the focus on the machines... but there is more to hacking an election than just them.
I've long thought the two rather similar.
In theory, both are great ideas... in reality, no one can ever seem to get it right.
Don't worry though... THIS time, THIS time will be different! All of those previous attempts... those weren't real smart guns/communism!
Except no one denied Obama the opportunity to nominate a justice. His name was Merrick Garland... and his nomination was rejected by the Senate via inaction... which is not a new concept... just ask John J. Crittenden, Edward King, John M. Read, Edward A. Bradford, William C. Micou, Jeremiah S. Black, & Henry Stanbery who all saw their SCOTUS nominations not receive a final up or down vote.
Does that mean you blame VP Joe Biden for creating the so called 'Biden rule' which was referenced by some in the refusal to act on the Garland nomination?
If Kennedy were to retire (as is rumored in some circles) it would have a similar net result.
You sound like a person with much fear that you may loose.
I've heard it argued that the recent Scalia seat vacancy, that the high court was crippled due to the low number of rulings they issued... that major cases could not be decided because of the 4-4 split... despite the fact that in the end, the court did eventually end up with an average number of rulings for the session.
Given this claim of a massive down-tick in the throughput of SCOTUS... all due to a single open seat... would not it be better to increase the number of seats so that even more writs of certiorari may be considered, accepted and ruled upon? We are now 'celebrating' the 80th anniversary of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.
I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm at least honest enough to see through so much of the BS of the #resistance.
Correct, but you can also get into interesting areas of the subsidiary being setup with binding corporate rules which can (in some cases) prevent the foreign entity from complying.
Attempt to prevent you from selling/shipping items to people in the state... as they long have with Alibaba.
Bingo, which does help reduce the likelihood of a hijacking, and incentivize an explosive... just the very sort of transition we have seen.
Should I resort to false accusations as well?
Citation?
We are nearly 16 years since 9/11... and in all of that time we've not seen another organized effort to take down a plane from onboard, after passing through domestic security checks. Granted, re-inforced cockpit doors were something that should have been there for ages... but other than that... to what to you ascribe the lack of attempts?
The threat of the Air Marshals are like the laundromat with a sign saying "guarded by a shotgun wielding owner 3 days a week". You don't know if the threat exists, if that many days is true, or if this is an on day or an off day.
If you are a baddie up to no good, why not grab some friends and roll the dice? Either as a group on a single plane (maybe you hit it lucky and landed on one without an Air Marshal), maybe you spread out and while many of you are foiled on board, some will be successful.
Why hasn't this happened yet?
Even in a world of secret police, when you don't know who around you may or may not be a spy for the government... a visible and in your face for is also visible to remind you of the power of the state... in case you forgot there may also be a hidden law enforcement agent in your midsts.
Except that in the cases I mentioned above, the passengers acted only after the device was (unsuccessful triggered), had we not been extraordinarily lucky (one due to a cancelled flight, the other due to waiting until the end of the flight, in both cases, retarding the effectiveness of their devices), the 'security' provided by the passengers wouldn't have mattered as they would already be dead.
True, 4-5 guys with box cutters isn't likely to take down a plane again... there are plenty of ways to do so still that passengers have no control over.
True, they haven't caught any bad guys going through yet... but have found plenty of weapons which people forgot. Why do you think they haven't caught any bad guys yet? Similarly, how have so few bad guys (zero IIRC) snuck through and carried out their evil deeds?
Richard Reid was on a Paris to Miami flight... Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was flying Amsterdam to Detroit, so again, not TSA.
Half true.
While no fan, I at least recognize the deterrent they serve.
We could declare planes to be 'gun/knife/bomb free zones', similar to most land based 'gun free' zones (ie schools)... but we know how well that works WRT the vast majority of mass shootings in this country being in a gun free zone which usually rely on the honor system.
As we saw in Manchester recently & Brussels last year (and time and time again elsewhere)... if you have a decent enough security perimeter which is a sufficient deterrent to easily carrying a serious weapon past, you move the prospective attack surface elsewhere, which is just what we've seen over the years.
Yes, the TSA is doing it's job, protecting the actual airplane and the people on it... even if they aren't the most competent and friendly when doing so.
Completely agree, doubly so as since the first talk of a laptop ban for certain international flights I kept thinking that you could easily detect bomb components in a laptop using much of the existing mechanisms.
At least in the states, we are required to put the laptop in it's own tray which gives them a nice view of the internals. While there is an obscene # of individual makes, models & configurations... a good chunk should be able to be be pattern matched and given a pass. Sure, there will be differences WRT the same model having an SSD or HDD option, also machable. More/less embedded SSD or RAM, ditto I'd think.
There would still be outliers which would require a second look (not unlike what we have today), but then we also allow quite a few small bottles of liquids through which too could be added together in a larger empty container (which they wouldn't give a second look to when going through security), so there already exist ways to get small amounts through.
Except that when the president does it, it's legal, as they are the ultimate decider as to classification.
When one of the thousands of government employees opts to, the releases information is still classified despite being available... and so causing issues for those with clearances which prohibit them from reading/seeing info they are not cleared for.
They did... and noticed 6 people had printed the doc, one of which was Miss Winner... who later confessed to being the one who mailed it.
Or just don't print in color.
Interesting... I had not heard of that (despite having done work in that area in a previous life).
This is a very interesting read: https://rol.im/securegoldenkey...
And that is any different than today... how? The third-party doctrine would seem to apply, not unlike how Google or Microsoft can peruse your email or uploaded files looking for things they don't like (or think illegal and report it).
The short answer is "it depends"... not on drivers, but on the status of SecureBoot.
I believe since at last Windows Phone 8 they've been using it on phones, though unlike your average desktop/laptop PC running Windows on UEFI, you cannot turn off SecureBoot on phones (not unlike the original Surface & Surface 2).
No doubt because he, like many criminals, thought himself smarter than everyone else and so able to evade law enforcement.
You are right though, there are safer places to operate from, though many of the ones he might want to live in are likely to have friendly law enforcement and/or extradition treaties... just ask Kim Dotcom and Julian Assange.
When he was apprehended he was logged into his laptop... which tends to negate most encryption methods as short of using partially homomorphic encryption, you've got to decrypt your data to do most things with it.
FTFY, or would you like to provide proof (not claims, but actual definitive proof) that that is what happened?
eBay also reduces their liability by prohibiting both legal & illegal items which they think would lead to bad PR and/or legal issues.
FTFY.
Except Craigslist wasn't built (that we know of) with the primary intent of facilitating illegal activities, nor do they take deliberate steps to hide the identities of those doing such things, nor make available certain services in areas where it is illegal... and where the government has the ability to arrest & prosecute them.
Doing so tends to incur the wrath of the powers that be, just ask Carl Ferrer.
Regarding Uber... do you mean in the sense that they are an unlicensed taxi in some jurisdictions? Or some may use their service during the commission of a crime (ie take an Uber to go rape someone)?
In either case, not much of a federal matter, and local municipalities tend to go after them for the prior (which rarely have criminal penalties associated), rather than the latter where they would be little different from a common carrier.
What's next? A poor car analogy?
What penalty would you suggest for someone who runs a website which facilitates illegal acts like rape & murder?
Whether you are up to legal or illegal things... practice good op-sec, as the contents of your insufficiently protected PC can often be used against you in ways you may not want.