This is the microkernel debate, all over again. Check the discussion between Torvalds and Tanenbaum. These guys built another Tanenbaum OS using Rust as their dev language. Same arguments as before.
That's the same point I've been making for a while now. If you can weaken encryption, then you can often use the same tools to weaken HMAC. That bit is why you can sleep comfortably at night without having to worry about your internet-connected appliances trying to murder you in your sleep; firmware increasingly is digitally signed to prevent forgery. Give one government the ability to turn on the microphone on any smart TV and you give it to all governments who have access to a legal process to compel it. USG couldn't kill the market any quicker if they tried.
You mean like all the pedophile engineers at Belgian telecom, or the terrorist copyright-infringer Angela Merkel, or the gangbangers at Anmesty International? They have to be criminals if they're hiding something, right?
The governments position: I bet you'll come up with a better way to tear down that cement wall if I give you a court order to break it down with your forehead.
Of course I have skin in the game, but flavor-of-month Jihad organization isn't the only threat in my threat model, and recent revelations have been pretty clear about one thing: the increased desire for "insights" is only about 5% concerned with terrorism as a criminal matter and 95% concerned with other authorized purposes and objectives, which chiefly involve affecting geopolitical change. That's why we bug Merkel's phone, even though she's not a terrorist. The "before it's too late" argument was used to justify massive nuclear armament during the Cold War, and instead of making everyone safer, it came very close to extinguishing civilization on this planet. We're in a similar arms race now, only its on smart devices instead of warheads (at least for now). If you want your kids to grow up in a world where everyone is afraid their kitchen appliances may decide one day to kill them, then please continue support for militarizing consumer goods.
I would encourage you to heavily scrutinize any code that was written while dice was in charge. Hiding malware inside apparently legitimate software tends to be a pattern of behavior. If they would do it for user downloads, it is reasonable to expect they would sprinkle surprises in other places; I.e., source forge admin tools. By inheriting the infrastructure, you are effectively in the same boat the users who downloaded Filezilla were in. How do you trust the code?
Its only real function was to be secure from third-party subpoenas. Hillary wasn't afraid of Russians getting her emails; it is well known that Russians were all over the state.gov unclassified email system. Russians generally know how to keep stuff secret, and they have so many ways of spying on people that securing your email probably isn't sufficient to keep them out anyway. As for the classified system, well, who knows. When you look at some of the people she got this data from, you wonder whether anyone at all is using the classified system.
She was worried primarily about Republicans getting access to the emails, not Russians. The server was wiped prior to being given to the FBI, and Clinton was able to independently select which emails to turn over to investigators. So, taking into account her threat model, the private server was a success.
The government made a similar argument in the Microsoft case. They argued that the process for obtaining a warrant over Irish jurisdiction was burdensome and thus shouldn't need to be followed, but the judge pointed out that the administration itself designed the process and could change it in cooperation with the Irish authorities if it so desired. This is probably related to that whole mess.
Given that the details of the program would be classified, I'm not sure what "Congressional approval" actually means. Does that mean Congress has to pass a bill, or does that mean that someone on the Intelligence Oversight Committee says "uh huh" and shakes a hand?
All labor unions at that time were considered de facto communist affiliated. Let's no kid ourselves about that. FDR's and his inner circle were considered communists by many.
One of the lessons of 911 was that Immigration was ignoring the law for political reasons, which resulted in hijackers being in the country when they should not have been. After 15 years, still not addressed. Half of those under the GOP.
Another was the critical information was not shared between LE agencies due to petty empire building and excessive gathering of worthless surveillance data. Let's see, yup, that's still a problem.
Another was terrorist cells receiving training and support from US allies. Stuff is so confusing in Syria now US can't clearly identify who the enemy is. Still a problem.
Electronic surveillance against terrorists has limits. OBL used personal couriers, which is why we couldn't find him for a decade. Today, we cant tell if we actually killed any terrorists or not because we do it over a TV camera now from 10000 ft via a radio feed to a desk in Germany, so we just classify all corpses as insurgents after the fact. Yeah, still a problem.
We couldn't get cooperation in the ME because political instability and everyone hates the way US treats people over there. Today, we've been asked politely to leave the two countries we supposedly liberated because of various massacres, and the ones we haven't officially invaded are mostly in flames. Still a problem.
But I'm sure paying billions to monitor the phone calls and internet of journalists will make us all safer. If there was a single lesson that came out of 911, its how troublesome journalists are.
The GI bill isn't about making money. It's about reintegrating people into the economy who were drafted or entered service at a young age and whose primary job skill is killing people.
If they get complaints the can blacklist the abuser in the SBL, which causes warnings to show up in the browser when a site containing it is displayed.
It isn't a moving scale. Advanced communications capability (which media pundits are confusingly using interchangeably with "broadband") has a specific meaning as defined in the Telco Act of 96. They want to change the definition based upon what they think people need rather than what the law they wrote actually says, because the companies which have already received subsidies under the Act want to continue getting them without meeting the requirements of the Act. If the scale is being moved at all, it is because incumbent telcos are trying the move it.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends. Certain challenge-response protocols require passwords to use reversable encryption server-side.
This is the microkernel debate, all over again. Check the discussion between Torvalds and Tanenbaum. These guys built another Tanenbaum OS using Rust as their dev language. Same arguments as before.
The whole reason a hacker can remotely disable your engine is because police asked for that capability and now hackers have it.
It's called the USPTO. That's working out really well, isn't it?
That's the same point I've been making for a while now. If you can weaken encryption, then you can often use the same tools to weaken HMAC. That bit is why you can sleep comfortably at night without having to worry about your internet-connected appliances trying to murder you in your sleep; firmware increasingly is digitally signed to prevent forgery. Give one government the ability to turn on the microphone on any smart TV and you give it to all governments who have access to a legal process to compel it. USG couldn't kill the market any quicker if they tried.
You mean like all the pedophile engineers at Belgian telecom, or the terrorist copyright-infringer Angela Merkel, or the gangbangers at Anmesty International? They have to be criminals if they're hiding something, right?
Torturing people isn't very efficient at getting information, either. That isn't the point. It's the message it sends to everyone else.
No, but if the government orders Apple to keep trying until they run out of money, then the example will be made. That's the point.
The governments position: I bet you'll come up with a better way to tear down that cement wall if I give you a court order to break it down with your forehead.
Of course I have skin in the game, but flavor-of-month Jihad organization isn't the only threat in my threat model, and recent revelations have been pretty clear about one thing: the increased desire for "insights" is only about 5% concerned with terrorism as a criminal matter and 95% concerned with other authorized purposes and objectives, which chiefly involve affecting geopolitical change. That's why we bug Merkel's phone, even though she's not a terrorist. The "before it's too late" argument was used to justify massive nuclear armament during the Cold War, and instead of making everyone safer, it came very close to extinguishing civilization on this planet. We're in a similar arms race now, only its on smart devices instead of warheads (at least for now). If you want your kids to grow up in a world where everyone is afraid their kitchen appliances may decide one day to kill them, then please continue support for militarizing consumer goods.
Actually there is a difference. Samsung doesn't have sovereign immunity. Oh wait, they just got it in CISA. Never mind.
I would encourage you to heavily scrutinize any code that was written while dice was in charge. Hiding malware inside apparently legitimate software tends to be a pattern of behavior. If they would do it for user downloads, it is reasonable to expect they would sprinkle surprises in other places; I.e., source forge admin tools. By inheriting the infrastructure, you are effectively in the same boat the users who downloaded Filezilla were in. How do you trust the code?
Google could fix the green download button thing if they wanted to. Theirbimage recognition is very good now. Pitch a very public fit about it.
If you think about, it's all metadata really. No actual communications were stolen.
Its only real function was to be secure from third-party subpoenas. Hillary wasn't afraid of Russians getting her emails; it is well known that Russians were all over the state.gov unclassified email system. Russians generally know how to keep stuff secret, and they have so many ways of spying on people that securing your email probably isn't sufficient to keep them out anyway. As for the classified system, well, who knows. When you look at some of the people she got this data from, you wonder whether anyone at all is using the classified system. She was worried primarily about Republicans getting access to the emails, not Russians. The server was wiped prior to being given to the FBI, and Clinton was able to independently select which emails to turn over to investigators. So, taking into account her threat model, the private server was a success.
They aren't back doors. They're front doors with super ultra extra mega locks. Double top secret probation.
The government made a similar argument in the Microsoft case. They argued that the process for obtaining a warrant over Irish jurisdiction was burdensome and thus shouldn't need to be followed, but the judge pointed out that the administration itself designed the process and could change it in cooperation with the Irish authorities if it so desired. This is probably related to that whole mess.
Given that the details of the program would be classified, I'm not sure what "Congressional approval" actually means. Does that mean Congress has to pass a bill, or does that mean that someone on the Intelligence Oversight Committee says "uh huh" and shakes a hand?
All labor unions at that time were considered de facto communist affiliated. Let's no kid ourselves about that. FDR's and his inner circle were considered communists by many.
One of the lessons of 911 was that Immigration was ignoring the law for political reasons, which resulted in hijackers being in the country when they should not have been. After 15 years, still not addressed. Half of those under the GOP. Another was the critical information was not shared between LE agencies due to petty empire building and excessive gathering of worthless surveillance data. Let's see, yup, that's still a problem. Another was terrorist cells receiving training and support from US allies. Stuff is so confusing in Syria now US can't clearly identify who the enemy is. Still a problem. Electronic surveillance against terrorists has limits. OBL used personal couriers, which is why we couldn't find him for a decade. Today, we cant tell if we actually killed any terrorists or not because we do it over a TV camera now from 10000 ft via a radio feed to a desk in Germany, so we just classify all corpses as insurgents after the fact. Yeah, still a problem. We couldn't get cooperation in the ME because political instability and everyone hates the way US treats people over there. Today, we've been asked politely to leave the two countries we supposedly liberated because of various massacres, and the ones we haven't officially invaded are mostly in flames. Still a problem. But I'm sure paying billions to monitor the phone calls and internet of journalists will make us all safer. If there was a single lesson that came out of 911, its how troublesome journalists are.
The GI bill isn't about making money. It's about reintegrating people into the economy who were drafted or entered service at a young age and whose primary job skill is killing people.
The treaty was signed, but was it ratified? And who agreed to it?
If they get complaints the can blacklist the abuser in the SBL, which causes warnings to show up in the browser when a site containing it is displayed.
Spoken as someone who has never seen the aftermath of a hurricane.
It isn't a moving scale. Advanced communications capability (which media pundits are confusingly using interchangeably with "broadband") has a specific meaning as defined in the Telco Act of 96. They want to change the definition based upon what they think people need rather than what the law they wrote actually says, because the companies which have already received subsidies under the Act want to continue getting them without meeting the requirements of the Act. If the scale is being moved at all, it is because incumbent telcos are trying the move it.