Got a great idea and want to get it past security without trouble? that's simple... simply get buy-in from a senior executive.
One of the best environments I ever worked security for allowed for senior managers to take personal responsibility for these kinds of decisions. The business unit would announce their Big Idea. InfoSec would look at it, analyze risks / security issues, and (often missing from many InfoSec groups) work out ways to allow the same functionality while mitigating any discovered risks, and ultimately document those risks. If the business unit didn't want to follow InfoSec's recommendations, they could take their Big Idea to their boss and make the business case for it so that their boss can take personal responsibility for the decision. InfoSec would provide the risk assessment. Senior management would then decide if the business case overcame the risk and everyone would press on accordingly. The process did wonders for enforcing open communication. Management wanted good information before they put their own butts on the line. Business units couldn't get away with just grousing or avoiding InfoSec and InfoSec couldn't get away with arbitrarily dismissing any new ideas.
I should point out that this system is seeped in conflict. And that's good. Conflict is fundamental to security and, in many ways, any pursuit that has many options guided by creative thinking - something that all good IT environments should be encouraging. The key is to ensure that conflict can drive a constructive process. Too many IT environments pretend conflict doesn't exist and has no proper outlet for it.
I wonder if Google's action could lead to a lawsuit? It's one thing to re-jigger the ranking equation to block linkfarms, but something else entirely to purposely punish a company and make them essentially invisible.
It wouldn't be the first time. Look up SearchKing.
If these Anons are, as we are led to believe, under the age of caring, why are these actions deemed so wrong? Shouldn't they be seen as the only appropriate action?
Do we know that these individuals are any given age? And is age itself an excuse for inappropriate behavior? How does age make this an "appropriate action?"
UK and US children have known nothing but war since they day they were born. Sadam makes a threat, we bomb him. Sadam does a naughty, we bomb him. Bomb on planes and trains, we carpet bomb someone.
And we expect our own offspring to behave themselves when faced with authority?
I think we're asking too much of them. Until our own actions change, virtual bombing will continue.
Oh please. Just because you don't agree with the politics associated with Iraq doesn't mean every other illegal act is excused. If it were, we could cherry-pick events from any given time in history and use that as our defense as we stand before a judge.
The fools! Do they not know that a candle that burns half as long burns twice as bright?! These are obviously a strain of replicant mosquitoes that posses superior physical capability.
Bradley Manning put his career, and possibly his life (if convicted of treason) at risk to collect material to expose the treachery and hypocrisy he saw within US dealings with foreign powers - especially the recent wars.
Manning is a fool who bought in on the generalized concept of "how the first world exploits the third", and then abused his access to produce a shotgun scattering of documents that fail to make the point. He put his own life and career on the line in the name of this non-accomplishment and may even have created additional dangers for potential future whistleblowers who might have something legitimate to bring to light. And while I believe Manning's intentions were honest (and am suspicious of the narcissism shown by Assange, even before these recent leaks), honest intentions do not save one from being the fool.
That reporter isn't the only one. There's a Swedish documentary called WikiRebels (look for it on YouTube - but I suggest finding the unedited version) that repeats the characterization as well and shows an adoring fan referring to Assange as an angel (to which Assange jokingly suggests it's the hair that does it).
Hasn't it been addressed already ad hominem that there was no "rocket-propelled grenade " and the object that has been carried was a camera? Did I miss something?
You missed the unedited version of the video. The edited version cuts out parts that show armed individuals within the group but goes to great detail to label the reporters (as well as to drive home how callous combat banter can be and highlight the children). You can find various places that offer some analysis of this, one of which is: http://oldbulllee.com/wikmassacre.htm
No, because out of 9 pages detailing the relationship and story behind how they came to be working with Wikileaks, a couple sentences describing someone's first impression of Mr. Assange is clearly the most important. I can see why the submitter would zero in on that single paragraph, rather than the other content across the other 9 pages.
I can see how one would think think this if one was unused to reading a narrative and possessed a short attention span induced by years of sound-bites. In this day and age, we're unused to involved articles. But this one is, in fact, 9 pages of involved description of events. And just as in life - first impressions (and initial paragraphs) are not the full measure of a relationship.
Of course, first impressions may set the tone of a given relationship. And I suspect that if the description of Assange was glowing, we wouldn't see mention of it. But since the description and thus over-all tone is not unwaveringly positive, we see negative reaction.
...character assassination!? Piping hot character assassination? Get em while they're hot! You Sir? Some nice hot character assassination for the little lady?
And so the propaganda continues. We have people portraying Assange as a "saint" and a "digital Scarlet Pimpernel", ushering in a new age of truth and transparency. But anything remotely critical of this angel of the digital age is conspiracy and character assassination. Of course, then we have those who believe Assange is demon and conspirator, worthy of political assassination - or at least ignoring a few choice laws to warrent arrest. So there's more than enough noise to go around. Thanks for contributing to the din.
That's really quite easy. I'm doing it right now, in fact. I don't like the trend but this is silly FUD - doing nothing protects me, I have to make an effort to be used.
Defend by doing nothing. How very Zen.
Unfortunately, thanks in part to Facebook, we're seeing the emergence of a mindset that requires one to opt-out of others' get-rich-quick schemes. At some point in the future, doing nothing may no longer work. We may very well be damned if we do and damned if we don't.
This has me pondering on what to consider a sequel. It's almost as if the term is dismissive in nature. I didn't consider the Mad Max movies to be sequels. I felt that the three movies were different enough to be more than simple character re-hashes that we normally associate with sequels. But then, I liked the movies so maybe I'm biased.
...if we stopped calling exploitation attempts "attacks." It's trickery; it's spying; it's occasionally even -- and this is stretching the word a little -- sabotage (in the case of DoS). But "attacks?" It makes it sound like some kind of assault that one can somehow "get even" for. The metaphor is all wrong.
I disagree. The use of the word "attack" is perfectly suited. Espionage involves attacks. Politics involves attacks. You can attack a problem, attack a mountain (climbing in mind but that could imply more than one form of 'attack'), attack a movie you found worthy of strong criticism, or attack an idea. An attack is nothing more than an aggressive action who's implication is highly dependent on the situation and context of the use of the word.
The base problem is looking at this as warfare. In the context of war, an attack has very specific connotations. That form of attack and the concept of war lead us in to the wrong mind-set for the reality of the situation. This is where trickery, spying, and sabotage comes in. This is simply a new set of tools for espionage. And while this does open a new way of looking at things beyond the old Cold War era, namely actors that may not be directly associated with a State, a lot of the traditional concepts and general nature of the behavior apply well to the exploitation of this new environment and tool sets.
One of the fun things about the Patriot Act. The National Security Letter tends to come with a gag order. Those gag orders can last for years.
Granted - I might be reading too much in to the statement. But if Google were being served NSLs, I wouldn't be surprised if they're restricted from stating that they are. The numbers are around 50k NSLs a year. I would expect that Google has seen more than a hand-full.
In a discussion about privacy, I would think this sort of thing would be salient to the point.
"If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
What's more interesting is the next piece:
But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we're all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.
Schmidt is telling us that Google is being served PATRIOT Act notices without breaking the law and telling us that they're being served. It's a pity everyone is hung up on the nothing-to-hide idiocy. Of course, it's little wonder we're missing the important pieces when served up ham-fisted attacks by the likes of Consumer Watchdog.
Slashdot Mirror
Got a great idea and want to get it past security without trouble? that's simple... simply get buy-in from a senior executive.
One of the best environments I ever worked security for allowed for senior managers to take personal responsibility for these kinds of decisions. The business unit would announce their Big Idea. InfoSec would look at it, analyze risks / security issues, and (often missing from many InfoSec groups) work out ways to allow the same functionality while mitigating any discovered risks, and ultimately document those risks. If the business unit didn't want to follow InfoSec's recommendations, they could take their Big Idea to their boss and make the business case for it so that their boss can take personal responsibility for the decision. InfoSec would provide the risk assessment. Senior management would then decide if the business case overcame the risk and everyone would press on accordingly. The process did wonders for enforcing open communication. Management wanted good information before they put their own butts on the line. Business units couldn't get away with just grousing or avoiding InfoSec and InfoSec couldn't get away with arbitrarily dismissing any new ideas. I should point out that this system is seeped in conflict. And that's good. Conflict is fundamental to security and, in many ways, any pursuit that has many options guided by creative thinking - something that all good IT environments should be encouraging. The key is to ensure that conflict can drive a constructive process. Too many IT environments pretend conflict doesn't exist and has no proper outlet for it.
I wonder if Google's action could lead to a lawsuit? It's one thing to re-jigger the ranking equation to block linkfarms, but something else entirely to purposely punish a company and make them essentially invisible.
It wouldn't be the first time. Look up SearchKing.
If these Anons are, as we are led to believe, under the age of caring, why are these actions deemed so wrong? Shouldn't they be seen as the only appropriate action?
Do we know that these individuals are any given age? And is age itself an excuse for inappropriate behavior? How does age make this an "appropriate action?"
UK and US children have known nothing but war since they day they were born. Sadam makes a threat, we bomb him. Sadam does a naughty, we bomb him. Bomb on planes and trains, we carpet bomb someone. And we expect our own offspring to behave themselves when faced with authority? I think we're asking too much of them. Until our own actions change, virtual bombing will continue.
Oh please. Just because you don't agree with the politics associated with Iraq doesn't mean every other illegal act is excused. If it were, we could cherry-pick events from any given time in history and use that as our defense as we stand before a judge.
So what you're saying is that you believe this company is a good stock pick because they know how to game people who game the media?
"Unthinkable" in this instance roughly translates to "we want you to stop thinking." Says Murdoch - take THAT, Internet!
The fools! Do they not know that a candle that burns half as long burns twice as bright?! These are obviously a strain of replicant mosquitoes that posses superior physical capability.
If you're going to do it, DON'T TELL ANYONE, STUPID!
Right. Because nobody else has ever thought of that before. Manning has changed the playing field for Whistleblowers everywhere.
Bradley Manning put his career, and possibly his life (if convicted of treason) at risk to collect material to expose the treachery and hypocrisy he saw within US dealings with foreign powers - especially the recent wars.
Manning is a fool who bought in on the generalized concept of "how the first world exploits the third", and then abused his access to produce a shotgun scattering of documents that fail to make the point. He put his own life and career on the line in the name of this non-accomplishment and may even have created additional dangers for potential future whistleblowers who might have something legitimate to bring to light. And while I believe Manning's intentions were honest (and am suspicious of the narcissism shown by Assange, even before these recent leaks), honest intentions do not save one from being the fool.
How very droll. Sink meah if it is not so. Well done, sirah.
</percy>
That reporter isn't the only one. There's a Swedish documentary called WikiRebels (look for it on YouTube - but I suggest finding the unedited version) that repeats the characterization as well and shows an adoring fan referring to Assange as an angel (to which Assange jokingly suggests it's the hair that does it).
Hasn't it been addressed already ad hominem that there was no "rocket-propelled grenade " and the object that has been carried was a camera? Did I miss something?
You missed the unedited version of the video. The edited version cuts out parts that show armed individuals within the group but goes to great detail to label the reporters (as well as to drive home how callous combat banter can be and highlight the children). You can find various places that offer some analysis of this, one of which is: http://oldbulllee.com/wikmassacre.htm
No, because out of 9 pages detailing the relationship and story behind how they came to be working with Wikileaks, a couple sentences describing someone's first impression of Mr. Assange is clearly the most important. I can see why the submitter would zero in on that single paragraph, rather than the other content across the other 9 pages.
I can see how one would think think this if one was unused to reading a narrative and possessed a short attention span induced by years of sound-bites. In this day and age, we're unused to involved articles. But this one is, in fact, 9 pages of involved description of events. And just as in life - first impressions (and initial paragraphs) are not the full measure of a relationship. Of course, first impressions may set the tone of a given relationship. And I suspect that if the description of Assange was glowing, we wouldn't see mention of it. But since the description and thus over-all tone is not unwaveringly positive, we see negative reaction.
It's got META particles to keep the propaganda going 50% longer than normal propaganda!
You've got a wonderful future ahead of you working advertising for fast food franchises. That, or Fox News.
Do you even know what The Scarlet Pimpernel was about? Your literary reference-fu is weak.
It's not my characterization - I'm making a reference to what others have called him. I also don't think he's an angel.
...character assassination!?
Piping hot character assassination?
Get em while they're hot!
You Sir? Some nice hot character assassination for the little lady?
And so the propaganda continues. We have people portraying Assange as a "saint" and a "digital Scarlet Pimpernel", ushering in a new age of truth and transparency. But anything remotely critical of this angel of the digital age is conspiracy and character assassination. Of course, then we have those who believe Assange is demon and conspirator, worthy of political assassination - or at least ignoring a few choice laws to warrent arrest. So there's more than enough noise to go around. Thanks for contributing to the din.
The article talks about more than Assange's clothes - but thanks for focusing on the important stuff.
I find your ideas fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
You will notice I never mentioned Facebook.
You may notice that we are talking about Facebook.
What have you done to defend yourself against the recent tiger attacks?
So you're telling me that Facebook has recently employed tigers. Interesting. Go on...
That's really quite easy. I'm doing it right now, in fact. I don't like the trend but this is silly FUD - doing nothing protects me, I have to make an effort to be used.
Defend by doing nothing. How very Zen.
Unfortunately, thanks in part to Facebook, we're seeing the emergence of a mindset that requires one to opt-out of others' get-rich-quick schemes. At some point in the future, doing nothing may no longer work. We may very well be damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Iran has learned from Soviet mistakes - you do need computer weapon to catch moose and squirrel.
This has me pondering on what to consider a sequel. It's almost as if the term is dismissive in nature. I didn't consider the Mad Max movies to be sequels. I felt that the three movies were different enough to be more than simple character re-hashes that we normally associate with sequels. But then, I liked the movies so maybe I'm biased.
...if we stopped calling exploitation attempts "attacks." It's trickery; it's spying; it's occasionally even -- and this is stretching the word a little -- sabotage (in the case of DoS). But "attacks?" It makes it sound like some kind of assault that one can somehow "get even" for. The metaphor is all wrong.
I disagree. The use of the word "attack" is perfectly suited. Espionage involves attacks. Politics involves attacks. You can attack a problem, attack a mountain (climbing in mind but that could imply more than one form of 'attack'), attack a movie you found worthy of strong criticism, or attack an idea. An attack is nothing more than an aggressive action who's implication is highly dependent on the situation and context of the use of the word.
The base problem is looking at this as warfare. In the context of war, an attack has very specific connotations. That form of attack and the concept of war lead us in to the wrong mind-set for the reality of the situation. This is where trickery, spying, and sabotage comes in. This is simply a new set of tools for espionage. And while this does open a new way of looking at things beyond the old Cold War era, namely actors that may not be directly associated with a State, a lot of the traditional concepts and general nature of the behavior apply well to the exploitation of this new environment and tool sets.
One of the fun things about the Patriot Act. The National Security Letter tends to come with a gag order. Those gag orders can last for years.
Granted - I might be reading too much in to the statement. But if Google were being served NSLs, I wouldn't be surprised if they're restricted from stating that they are. The numbers are around 50k NSLs a year. I would expect that Google has seen more than a hand-full.
In a discussion about privacy, I would think this sort of thing would be salient to the point.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/google-mocked/
"If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
What's more interesting is the next piece:
Schmidt is telling us that Google is being served PATRIOT Act notices without breaking the law and telling us that they're being served. It's a pity everyone is hung up on the nothing-to-hide idiocy. Of course, it's little wonder we're missing the important pieces when served up ham-fisted attacks by the likes of Consumer Watchdog.