100% correct, but even this essentially misses the point of purely logical opposition to this plan, which is this: Any backdoor, without exception, will necessarily be a means by which bad actors may break encryption. This vulnerability will exist with any backdoor. Put another way, if our intelligence community can crack a code, so can anyone else. Additionally, it is not that we don't trust any one official with such power per se, it is that once that power is given there is no way to know who would wield it in the future, or to what purpose. These two points in my mind cannot be overcome, and thus while the debate may continue, I do not see a favorable end to the position advocating encryption bypasses. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable in a free society.
As an American, I have longed viewed our tendency to be unconcerned with security as a bit odd. The British seemed to take it more seriously, and be smarter about it. This is part of why their human intelligence generally seemed superior to ours. Today, the new British government seems keen on sacrificing the security of its people on the altar of the false religion of national security. This will clearly leave the government in charge of the people if taken to its full conclusion. It is hard to reconcile the best interests of the citizenry with the current behavior of their authorities.
Oh, they are absolutely arguing about the average citizen's best interests: How best to circumvent their rights. The TPP seems, on the face of it, to be a ruinous document intended to protect corporate interests above individual interests to such a degree that "natural persons" (I hate that term) will be entirely subordinate in all legal processes. This will be an "instrument" toward such a purpose. But bipartisan opposition will be lacking as our Senators' corporate masters will make sure of it's absence.
Not agency heads outside of the cabinet. For instance, the Director of the FBI is subject to a term of service. In other words, not any officer. This is to insulate such personnel from political pressure. I am sure there is a list, but I honestly don't have that list.
Whether he could stop this or not is not as clear as that. If an appointee requires Senate approval, the President cannot actually fire them. Now we move on to the concept of the E.O. more broadly. An E.O. is difficult to enforce as penalties have not been established. This creates a problem in enforcement when one cannot merely cut off funding.
What the President can do is declassify just about anything. But the circular logic applied in this case itself shocks the conscience and thus should be removed from consideration by the court. These judges, however, are not actually violating the Constitution in the sense of "Rules as Written". As for swept under the rug... no one was ever going to go to prison or lose a job over this anyway. I am not saying they shouldn't, only that it was never going to actually happen.
Well, if you can't even minimally secure a customer's data, you probably shouldn't collect and keep it. This company was keeping unencrypted financial data on non-firewalled systems. "Bank-like"? Really? How about equivalent to a kid's lemonade stand? Seriously, if I set the bar any lower a snail with a broken foot could clear it.
What would make a big difference would be to force businesses beyond a certain size to assume liability for breaches, with minimum punitive damages and a presumption of responsibility. Then let the insurance companies dictate what will/won't be covered. As soon as there's a financial incentive, you'll get whiplash keeping up with security upgrades.
Frankly, I'd like to see companies punished for attempting to prosecute legitimate security research. However, one battle at a time seems wise.
Part of it comes down to the blanket of "National Security". Everything is "National Security". People don't understand that the problem isn't the size of government, either big or small, but rather the access citizens have to what goes on behind the proverbial curtain. Something that our current leaders fail to understand, or embrace with great enthusiasm, is that a democracy, even one set up insulate voters from direct control, cannot endure as a free society wherein the government has all of the privacy, and the People none of the privacy.
While the councilman is correct regarding expectation of privacy in the general sense, having data to track private citizens not suspected of criminal activity goes far beyond typical capacity to track, historically anyway. Potential safeguards are possible, such as legal limits on how long the data could be kept, or maybe an on-board database with a list of sought-for plates that will then contact the station. There is no need really to keep a record of what was scanned.
Artificially increasing the size of a growing labor pool depresses wages in the market. We really do have enough of most IT and CS specialties covered by internal workers. Bringing these visa holders in pushes wages down generally. It also creates a form of indentured servitude among the holders themselves. Which got me thinking that I might actually agree with Trump on this topic (proof anything is possible). One means of reducing this is to impose a condition that the visa-holder must be paid median for the industry plus ten percent, not deducting for the cost of recruitment, for actual duties performed. Further, actual payment must be recorded and monitored, with fines up to 10 times the difference between median pay and actual pay being mandatory. And if there are too few functional equivalents, err on the side of adding salaries based on job function. Let's make the job market truly be capitalist.
And for what it's worth, I have nothing against foreign workers at all, for the record. Many are skilled (maybe most, don't know, don't claim to), most I've met and worked with are determined and honest and hard working, and we do need some. But a citizen or greencard holder should never train their replacement, or be displaced by a guest worker of any variety.
The point at which failing to feed and shelter all became a choice. It all ties together. No aspect of this economy is capable of being independent of any other any more.
This concept that one should be forced into all-or-nothing between work and a life is truly something out of a fictional dystopia. One should not be expected to sacrifice hearth and home for basic financial security. The belief this is reasonable is evidence of something very wrong with this world. The concept that employees should be functional serfs is another piece of said evidence.
And yes, real world decisions can be tough. But here's something to consider: Something is very wrong when you have to give up a major positive in another aspect of your life just to have a minor one financially. Or that in a capitalist society that we except that employers are entitled to uncompensated time and effort. It's capitalism for all private commerce, or it isn't capitalism at all.
Do not presume that your experience either was or was not representative of the experiences of others. Anecdotal evidence (and this goes toward the article just as much) is an oxymoron.
I don't know about that. I do perceive them to have the unfortunate combination, however, of being priced to make their customers poor(er) while not being anything special. In the end, high-priced mediocrity is merely high-priced.
Quick message to Oracle: Between the security officer coming off as, at best, a self-entitled, over-inflated executive believing her services are better than her customers deserve, and now the company claiming they have a "right" to market share, I think the psychology of the company is becoming quite clear. It isn't that their products are poor (which they are not), it is that they seem to believe that they deserve their piece of the market by divine providence.
Please note, this is opinion, and only my own. Note to Oracle: One of the only things anyone is actually entitled to. Meaning: You are welcome to the opinion that you are above competitive market forces, but reality may or may not disagree. Be humble, quietly make better products than your competitors, and demonstrate effectiveness in the market rather than in the courts.
Java could be great. Make it so, or let those who can do better do better. That is the nature of the free market large corporations are supposed to embrace.
As others have noted, just about anything can be pushed through wrapped in a cloak of concern for kids. Is pornography too prevalent? Probably. Is it appropriate to circumvent basic freedoms and liberties to address what is, truly, a minor concern? No.
But for those losing their minds: Conservative thought is usually defensive, by definition. Further, it usually supports whatever is perceived as protection of property or home. The inexorable result of this focus is a moral police state based on knee-jerk reactions against any kind of positivity toward anything involving things running contrary to their tastes. The weird part is the focus on protecting children from sex (and the associated media), which is a part of a normal, healthy adult life, but not protecting them from images of violence, which is not a healthy part of life at any stage.
A very simple thing would be assign ratings to domains, pages, and posts. Build filtering based on these into browsers, and hold parents responsible for what they do/don't set up. I for one don't mind paying for public education of kids' programs or the like whether I have kids or not. However, let those who made the choice to have children be responsible for policing their kid's access to things.
Well, first, yeah, Harvard is a big deal. Graduating from there is not by itself proof of talent, but it is suggestive. Many hiring managers give school of origin too much weight, but Ivy League educations are pretty good. I get the feeling you have been on the wrong side of such things at least once. Suck it up, many of us have.
Secondly the presumption that the destination for this person is "Wall Street" I will accept as generic hyperbole and not just an assumption on your part. Because really?
Finally, the publicity stunt is a possibility. Without a solid timeline one cannot tell for sure. On the other hand, waiting until "hours before his flight" is a douche move on Facebook's part.
Except I don't want it to be a flop. I actually like Windows, and see Microsoft as a way to help keep Apple and Google "honest" (as much as that's possible). But whenever someone reduces my potential control over my computer in a way that creates risk, my desire to smack them with a proverbial brick rises. Windows 10 is actually not horrible from what I am seeing. But when it breaks, it breaks hard, and that's a problem. I don't expect perfection when they don't really control what else may be present on the computer, but I do expect to be able to at least delay while others take that risk first.
Plus, as for your Facebook comment... some of us have time-sensitive work to do, even with the "Home" version. School and jobs are real concerns for real people.
True, but that "non-obvious" part is the problem. It should be obvious, clearly labelled, and functional. The fact I can edit the registry and not nuke a computer is great. My father or uncle on the other hand... Just lots of "no". Though, really, I suppose I should thank Microsoft for the job security.
No update cycle is perfect. Problems happen. But being unable to refuse an update, or roll it back, etc., is a recipe for problems galore. The wise thing for Microsoft would be to establish four basic categories of update: Security, Important, Optional, and Driver. Security updates being mandatory makes sense given the general user's overall lack of understanding. Important could be major bug fixes, feature repair, that kind of thing. Drivers should be given a warning label and made completely optional and non-automatic. Optional is optional. "We want a unified support environment" does not help the end user who cannot do his/her homework.
First, there is still plenty of hydrogen and helium to build stars. However, this makes sense. It is commonly believed that the first generation of stars had a relatively high number of hypergiants, which burn at a rate millions of times the speed of the more common red dwarf. Frankly, this just means that as the universe is getting older the number of high mass stars is diminishing. The number of lower-mass dwarf stars may or may not be increasing, which actually extends the length of time before heat death as opposed to if it did not happen. I choose to not panic over our impending doom.
If you mean wrote it alone, I concur. But the third option I have seen is likewise quite common, which is the disinterested advisor.
But research papers in general, and the model for contribution, needs work. As does the value of researchers being assigned by volume of publications. A similar problem has arisen in placement testing: volume over substance. The longer the essay, the higher the score, whether grammar and grasp operated on the post-graduate level or the post-Kindergarten level. Quantity is rarely relevant to quality. Brevity and clarity are high-value arts which are being lost.
First, this IS the testing phase. As long as Google is paying attention to weird interactions within their services, this will likely be ironed out.
Second, if this is the biggest problem the service has so far, I submit that it really isn't that bad. Good to know, but not really a big deal to most.
On the other hand, if Google wants to be successful in this space, they will need to get this worked out before Project Fi is a generally available thing. Otherwise they really are just flailing about (but artfully).
In point of fact, the nine thing is a law. But that aside... there are no requirements to being on the Supreme Court in the Constitution. You need not be a lawyer, or even a citizen, though I can think of other laws that place limitations. one could conceivably appoint a 12-year-old to the court. Granted, the Senate would need to approve, but really anyone can serve. For life.
Slashdot Mirror
100% correct, but even this essentially misses the point of purely logical opposition to this plan, which is this: Any backdoor, without exception, will necessarily be a means by which bad actors may break encryption. This vulnerability will exist with any backdoor. Put another way, if our intelligence community can crack a code, so can anyone else. Additionally, it is not that we don't trust any one official with such power per se, it is that once that power is given there is no way to know who would wield it in the future, or to what purpose. These two points in my mind cannot be overcome, and thus while the debate may continue, I do not see a favorable end to the position advocating encryption bypasses. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable in a free society.
As an American, I have longed viewed our tendency to be unconcerned with security as a bit odd. The British seemed to take it more seriously, and be smarter about it. This is part of why their human intelligence generally seemed superior to ours. Today, the new British government seems keen on sacrificing the security of its people on the altar of the false religion of national security. This will clearly leave the government in charge of the people if taken to its full conclusion. It is hard to reconcile the best interests of the citizenry with the current behavior of their authorities.
Devoid of context this really misleads.
Full interview: http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik...
Oh, they are absolutely arguing about the average citizen's best interests: How best to circumvent their rights. The TPP seems, on the face of it, to be a ruinous document intended to protect corporate interests above individual interests to such a degree that "natural persons" (I hate that term) will be entirely subordinate in all legal processes. This will be an "instrument" toward such a purpose. But bipartisan opposition will be lacking as our Senators' corporate masters will make sure of it's absence.
Not agency heads outside of the cabinet. For instance, the Director of the FBI is subject to a term of service. In other words, not any officer. This is to insulate such personnel from political pressure. I am sure there is a list, but I honestly don't have that list.
I feel the need to argue with you regarding your use of the word "arguably". I believe the term you were looking for might have been "obviously".
Whether he could stop this or not is not as clear as that. If an appointee requires Senate approval, the President cannot actually fire them. Now we move on to the concept of the E.O. more broadly. An E.O. is difficult to enforce as penalties have not been established. This creates a problem in enforcement when one cannot merely cut off funding.
What the President can do is declassify just about anything. But the circular logic applied in this case itself shocks the conscience and thus should be removed from consideration by the court. These judges, however, are not actually violating the Constitution in the sense of "Rules as Written". As for swept under the rug... no one was ever going to go to prison or lose a job over this anyway. I am not saying they shouldn't, only that it was never going to actually happen.
Well, if you can't even minimally secure a customer's data, you probably shouldn't collect and keep it. This company was keeping unencrypted financial data on non-firewalled systems. "Bank-like"? Really? How about equivalent to a kid's lemonade stand? Seriously, if I set the bar any lower a snail with a broken foot could clear it.
What would make a big difference would be to force businesses beyond a certain size to assume liability for breaches, with minimum punitive damages and a presumption of responsibility. Then let the insurance companies dictate what will/won't be covered. As soon as there's a financial incentive, you'll get whiplash keeping up with security upgrades.
Frankly, I'd like to see companies punished for attempting to prosecute legitimate security research. However, one battle at a time seems wise.
Part of it comes down to the blanket of "National Security". Everything is "National Security". People don't understand that the problem isn't the size of government, either big or small, but rather the access citizens have to what goes on behind the proverbial curtain. Something that our current leaders fail to understand, or embrace with great enthusiasm, is that a democracy, even one set up insulate voters from direct control, cannot endure as a free society wherein the government has all of the privacy, and the People none of the privacy.
While the councilman is correct regarding expectation of privacy in the general sense, having data to track private citizens not suspected of criminal activity goes far beyond typical capacity to track, historically anyway. Potential safeguards are possible, such as legal limits on how long the data could be kept, or maybe an on-board database with a list of sought-for plates that will then contact the station. There is no need really to keep a record of what was scanned.
All true. Except here's the thing...
Artificially increasing the size of a growing labor pool depresses wages in the market. We really do have enough of most IT and CS specialties covered by internal workers. Bringing these visa holders in pushes wages down generally. It also creates a form of indentured servitude among the holders themselves. Which got me thinking that I might actually agree with Trump on this topic (proof anything is possible). One means of reducing this is to impose a condition that the visa-holder must be paid median for the industry plus ten percent, not deducting for the cost of recruitment, for actual duties performed. Further, actual payment must be recorded and monitored, with fines up to 10 times the difference between median pay and actual pay being mandatory. And if there are too few functional equivalents, err on the side of adding salaries based on job function. Let's make the job market truly be capitalist.
And for what it's worth, I have nothing against foreign workers at all, for the record. Many are skilled (maybe most, don't know, don't claim to), most I've met and worked with are determined and honest and hard working, and we do need some. But a citizen or greencard holder should never train their replacement, or be displaced by a guest worker of any variety.
The point at which failing to feed and shelter all became a choice. It all ties together. No aspect of this economy is capable of being independent of any other any more.
This concept that one should be forced into all-or-nothing between work and a life is truly something out of a fictional dystopia. One should not be expected to sacrifice hearth and home for basic financial security. The belief this is reasonable is evidence of something very wrong with this world. The concept that employees should be functional serfs is another piece of said evidence.
And yes, real world decisions can be tough. But here's something to consider: Something is very wrong when you have to give up a major positive in another aspect of your life just to have a minor one financially. Or that in a capitalist society that we except that employers are entitled to uncompensated time and effort. It's capitalism for all private commerce, or it isn't capitalism at all.
Do not presume that your experience either was or was not representative of the experiences of others. Anecdotal evidence (and this goes toward the article just as much) is an oxymoron.
I don't know about that. I do perceive them to have the unfortunate combination, however, of being priced to make their customers poor(er) while not being anything special. In the end, high-priced mediocrity is merely high-priced.
Quick message to Oracle: Between the security officer coming off as, at best, a self-entitled, over-inflated executive believing her services are better than her customers deserve, and now the company claiming they have a "right" to market share, I think the psychology of the company is becoming quite clear. It isn't that their products are poor (which they are not), it is that they seem to believe that they deserve their piece of the market by divine providence.
Please note, this is opinion, and only my own. Note to Oracle: One of the only things anyone is actually entitled to. Meaning: You are welcome to the opinion that you are above competitive market forces, but reality may or may not disagree. Be humble, quietly make better products than your competitors, and demonstrate effectiveness in the market rather than in the courts.
Java could be great. Make it so, or let those who can do better do better. That is the nature of the free market large corporations are supposed to embrace.
As others have noted, just about anything can be pushed through wrapped in a cloak of concern for kids. Is pornography too prevalent? Probably. Is it appropriate to circumvent basic freedoms and liberties to address what is, truly, a minor concern? No.
But for those losing their minds: Conservative thought is usually defensive, by definition. Further, it usually supports whatever is perceived as protection of property or home. The inexorable result of this focus is a moral police state based on knee-jerk reactions against any kind of positivity toward anything involving things running contrary to their tastes. The weird part is the focus on protecting children from sex (and the associated media), which is a part of a normal, healthy adult life, but not protecting them from images of violence, which is not a healthy part of life at any stage.
A very simple thing would be assign ratings to domains, pages, and posts. Build filtering based on these into browsers, and hold parents responsible for what they do/don't set up. I for one don't mind paying for public education of kids' programs or the like whether I have kids or not. However, let those who made the choice to have children be responsible for policing their kid's access to things.
Well, first, yeah, Harvard is a big deal. Graduating from there is not by itself proof of talent, but it is suggestive. Many hiring managers give school of origin too much weight, but Ivy League educations are pretty good. I get the feeling you have been on the wrong side of such things at least once. Suck it up, many of us have.
Secondly the presumption that the destination for this person is "Wall Street" I will accept as generic hyperbole and not just an assumption on your part. Because really?
Finally, the publicity stunt is a possibility. Without a solid timeline one cannot tell for sure. On the other hand, waiting until "hours before his flight" is a douche move on Facebook's part.
Except I don't want it to be a flop. I actually like Windows, and see Microsoft as a way to help keep Apple and Google "honest" (as much as that's possible). But whenever someone reduces my potential control over my computer in a way that creates risk, my desire to smack them with a proverbial brick rises. Windows 10 is actually not horrible from what I am seeing. But when it breaks, it breaks hard, and that's a problem. I don't expect perfection when they don't really control what else may be present on the computer, but I do expect to be able to at least delay while others take that risk first.
Plus, as for your Facebook comment... some of us have time-sensitive work to do, even with the "Home" version. School and jobs are real concerns for real people.
True, but that "non-obvious" part is the problem. It should be obvious, clearly labelled, and functional. The fact I can edit the registry and not nuke a computer is great. My father or uncle on the other hand... Just lots of "no". Though, really, I suppose I should thank Microsoft for the job security.
No update cycle is perfect. Problems happen. But being unable to refuse an update, or roll it back, etc., is a recipe for problems galore. The wise thing for Microsoft would be to establish four basic categories of update: Security, Important, Optional, and Driver. Security updates being mandatory makes sense given the general user's overall lack of understanding. Important could be major bug fixes, feature repair, that kind of thing. Drivers should be given a warning label and made completely optional and non-automatic. Optional is optional. "We want a unified support environment" does not help the end user who cannot do his/her homework.
First, there is still plenty of hydrogen and helium to build stars. However, this makes sense. It is commonly believed that the first generation of stars had a relatively high number of hypergiants, which burn at a rate millions of times the speed of the more common red dwarf. Frankly, this just means that as the universe is getting older the number of high mass stars is diminishing. The number of lower-mass dwarf stars may or may not be increasing, which actually extends the length of time before heat death as opposed to if it did not happen. I choose to not panic over our impending doom.
If you mean wrote it alone, I concur. But the third option I have seen is likewise quite common, which is the disinterested advisor. But research papers in general, and the model for contribution, needs work. As does the value of researchers being assigned by volume of publications. A similar problem has arisen in placement testing: volume over substance. The longer the essay, the higher the score, whether grammar and grasp operated on the post-graduate level or the post-Kindergarten level. Quantity is rarely relevant to quality. Brevity and clarity are high-value arts which are being lost.
First, this IS the testing phase. As long as Google is paying attention to weird interactions within their services, this will likely be ironed out. Second, if this is the biggest problem the service has so far, I submit that it really isn't that bad. Good to know, but not really a big deal to most. On the other hand, if Google wants to be successful in this space, they will need to get this worked out before Project Fi is a generally available thing. Otherwise they really are just flailing about (but artfully).
In point of fact, the nine thing is a law. But that aside... there are no requirements to being on the Supreme Court in the Constitution. You need not be a lawyer, or even a citizen, though I can think of other laws that place limitations. one could conceivably appoint a 12-year-old to the court. Granted, the Senate would need to approve, but really anyone can serve. For life.