Yet again proving to the delight of insanely pedantic nit-pickers (that'd be me) that using physical security as an analogue to computer security is not especially helpful.
I completely agree (even if I'm enough of a sucker for conversation that I'll delve in to the analogy discussion). The rules of the digital world and the physical world are entirely different (even if the digital world is simply a limited subset of the physical).
Living in a remote area would be security. The remoteness is the barrier to entry.
The problem with that analogy is that a barrier to entry isn't the only aspect involved. All obscurity is a barrier to entry. The problem is that people's perception of the effectiveness of obscurity, of how much of a barrier is presented, is often surprisingly inaccurate.
Being in a remote area might not be much of a barrier if I have ways of discovering your address. Finding out your address is not only a remote location, but that location is a fortress dug in to the top of a mountain might present a different situation (assuming you've got good locks).
Of course - I find comparisons of physical world security with information security to be fundamentally flawed. There's similarities but the rules tend to be entirely different between the environments; there's only so much that can be done with the laws of physics while we can completely re-define protocols.
That kind of sounds like every press release from every security vendor who claims a secret sauce implementation. I don't see how their situation is "a special case."
All computer security is through obscurity (passwords, encryption, both just security through obscurity). The lock on your homes door is security through obscurity (knowing the obscure key pattern).
Except, that isn't obscurity - that's a secret. The difference is subtle. However, one way to look at the issue is whether observation of a system will uncover the secret needed to defeat the system. I can study a cryptographic system without knowing how to defeat a given cryptographic key (unless that system is flawed). Likewise, buying the same brand lock shouldn't allow me to duplicate your house key (although many cheap home lock systems are pretty trivial to defeat - so maybe "security though obscurity" really does apply). Compare a house key to a "shave-and-a-haircut" knock. I can observe you using a key to get past a door without providing me the details to do the same if I don't posses a copy of your key. However, if I observe you doing the "shave-and-a-haircut" knock, I can then duplicate the same procedure myself.
I have not a lot of confidence, to say the least, in any government after some historial facts like that of Guatemala (every country has its own pearls -and time), but I agree it is not the best fit fot Afghanistan.
It really does get to be this forest of mirrors situation. Where are the realities and where are the deceptions? What deceptions exist from real conspiracies and what are created by our own perceptions and / or fantasies? This is the obvious down-side of these kinds of activities. Because the US has been involved in this behavior (with varying degrees of success) in the past, people (such as yourself) are inclined to be suspect that behavior in all future dealings.
I don't find the existence of these operations in themselves to be discomforting. Any actor in geopolitics will employ these tactics to one degree or another. The US would be foolish to not consider these tactics as well.
The issue is when to employ any given action. The problem with a lot of these historical events (including the one you linked to) is that actions were taken based on entirely incorrect assumptions. Its even possible that sometimes actions were taken with less stringent requirements for proof since these actions weren't perceived as having the same cost as conventional military activity.
While the city may have a shitty IT setup, is that illegal? Probably not. However what Childs did WAS illegal.
It should be noted that Childs was convicted as much on intent as what he did. One of the more enlightening aspects of that aforementioned CCIE juror's comments was the background that lead them to believe that Childs' behavior was not based on being a dedicated admin, but rather out of an intention to retain control for personal gain. The environment lacked policy that would have greatly clarified the situation and given Childs much less leeway to act (or it might have saved his ass if he was following the letter of that policy). What Childs did wasn't illegal per se. Why he did it betrayed an illegal action that might have been accepted in different circumstances. It was also noted that the Jury found it rather distasteful that this went to court.
Did a good job? The guy was keeping passwords and router configs in his head. He may be the best IOS programmer around, but that isn't the mark of a good job, that's the mark of an incredible idiot.
No - he was keeping them on media that he carried on his person.
Don't get me wrong. I don't support the Saddam regime nor am I advocating sympathy for the devil. But if you want to look at the history with the intent to understand the situation, you have to look at the broad scope of things. And you have to consider the viewpoints of the actors involved. It's complex. But then, much of history (especially in the Middle East) is.
To me it is a very basic strategy. 1. give power to the enemy of your enemy with weapons until there are no enemies. 2. When they have won, you exterminate them. This way you are saving the people from the attrocities they did, thus appearing as "good". 3. Profit!!
By all means - don't let history get in the way of a good conspiracy theory backed up by a Southpark joke.
Look back 30 years, how the hell do you think the Taliban got into power? Oh wait, back then Russia was the "bad guy" and fundamentalist Islam was the "good guy" so we ended up supplying them with guns, bombs, etc.
The Taliban as they are now didn't exist 30 years ago. The US supported various mujahideen factions. In the power vacuum left by Soviet withdrawl, those factions fought each other. Pakistan wanted both influence in the region and to stop hijacking of their trucking routes in to the country so they put heavy support behind a small student group that, in turn, fought various mujahideen who causing problems. That's how the Taliban got in to power.
The notion that the US is behind the Taliban is, at best, a very loose interpretation. Certainly, US influence was felt in the region and armaments were probably left over from the fight with the Soviets. But ironically, if the US was truely involved in an imperialistic war, there would have been no opportunity for the Taliban. As it is, the US lost interest in Afghanistan as soon as the Soviets left and left it to fall in to chaos.
How do you think Hussein got into power? Oh wait we helped him get into power...
Saddam got in to power by being a major political leader in a group that overthrew the former government via a coup. He then consolidated his power over several years before managing to take the leadership reins from the ailing leader at the time. He further cemented his position by having a number of members in his political party denounced as traitors and executed.
Saddam managed to get Soviet support early on. However, Iraq later cracked down on Iraqi communists and Iraq began to favor the West. The French were major supporters and consequently the vast majority of Iraq's military armament comes from Soviet and French sources.
The US certainly supported Saddam's Iraq. It was a modernized, secular government in a region that lacked many similar examples. It countered Iranian influence in the region. And, to some extent, supporting Iraq helped counter Soviet influence as well. However, the notion that the US put Saddam in to power is absurd.
The sooner we end the wars the better it is for the US and the rest of the world.
I completely agree. But it would seem the world is not that kind of place and won't be any time soon.
Democracy can only work if people have access to -all- the information available to make an informed decision.
Really? All or nothing, huh? Then how do you work out the need for secrecy and intelligence which, in turn, has proven to be a major part of any nation's security
I can agree that we need good information. We need to be wary of propoganda. We need proof to back up claims. And we need oversight of all aspects of government. But that is hardly access to all information available.
It is important to end imperialistic wars because it -always- bites us in the ass later on. These ever so evil Taliban fighters? Oh wait we supported them against the "evil" USSR. Saddam Hussein? Oh wait we helped him too...
If you think the US supports human rights you are sadly mistaken, imperialistic wars like the wars in the middle east and Vietnam have -always- ended up in a net loss for human rights and a net loss for the world.
Ahhh. You're one of these people who believe that the US operates in a vacuum; that there are no other players on the world stage. You believe that the US elects to get involved just out of a mean spirit. And if the US would only bury it's head, nothing bad would ever happen in the world. Just like in the 1930s.
As for the claims that the original trilogy attracted adults, I did a quick google for the old 1977 crowds and they all look 30 or younger. The films appealed mainly to the young people, just like today's movie do. (The favored demo is 35 or younger.)
What exactly is your definition of "adult"?:P
Don't get me wrong - I do see the flaws in the films. But I find that they've aged far better than the "rose colored glasses" dismissal allows.
I don't know if I'd go so far as buy episodes of Hogan's Heroes, but I have watched a few episodes and enjoyed them. It's not that there's zero entertainment in these old works. It's just that the flaws are more apparent then when I was a kid.
Honestly the first 3 were just as targeted. We look at them thru rose colored glasses at this point. Dont watch them for e few years come back and watch them anew.
Been there, done that. And I don't buy it. I enjoy those first three movies still today. Part of it is, admitedly, nostalgia. But I do like the movies themselves.
I've gone back to watch old TV shows I liked as a kid for nostalgia's sake as well. The A-Team. Hogan's Heroes. Buck Rogers. I cringe a bit when I watch them. Now I understand why my father would roll his eyes when I eagerly popped down in the beanbag to watch a show. I still get why I liked them back when I was a kid. But I suppose my expectations have changed and the old shows just didn't age along with me. I have found that while I am a sucker for nostalgia, it does not rule my view.
A 30 min pod race in the middle of the movie did NOTHING to advance the plot. Next time you watch it, skip it. You will find the movie is much better.
Oddly enough - I find that the movie would have been better if it were nothing but the pod racing and the final light-saber battle. Granted - it's not much of a movie at that point.
The idea is that the end user wouldn't notice delays in HTTP traffic but would likely notice it with VOIP, video, etc. Different services have different requirements; Quality of Service.
This is widely accepted. However, it isn't without debate.
I'd hardly call that reasonable. It was a nice try; worth giving a shot. But I can't find fault in the US Government's refusal to assist in Wikileaks' actions. And I hardly find that as an excuse to ignore Wikileaks' responsibility in the actions they take.
I get that Wikileaks feels that they have a moral imperative to take these actions. But a part of taking that stance is accepting the responsibility of those actions.
Yeah, I really wish he'd asked the White House or Pentagon for help in redacting these documents.
...
Oh wait he did and they said no.
So what you're saying is that they redacted the entire collection of documents, he didn't agree, and then he went ahead and published. And after having taken this action, he is no longer responsible for that action because the US Government didn't agree with it.
Here's the thing - nothing really can remain secret for long. At least, not from the guys you're actively engaged in fighting against. Beyond immediate operations, the only people you can hope to hoodwink for long are your own citizens by way of information control and propaganda.
It's not a given that every military secret will be discovered. Look through history and you'll find examples of secrets that were uncovered and secrets that remained secret for years. It all depends on the nature of those secrets and the actors involved.
Are there ethical (and practical) issues involved in releasing this info? Are there similar issues involved in not releasing this info? Certainly. But in all likelihood, the harm involved in releasing it will be very limited. Anyone who could make use of it in a military sense probably already knows most of this stuff. Not all...but probably most. So what remains? It seems like it would be reasonable to conclude that the main effect is to inform the American public and international community - people the American government very much wants to keep in the dark, but people who they have no right to keep in the dark.
I don't believe it's a given that there is not sufficient military value in this information. Nor do I agree that there is significant information for the public. I find the documents fascinating (and more than a few incidents described tragic) - but there seems to be a distinct lack of smoking guns in the mix.
Anyway, the cat's out of the bag now. Everything you're seeing is spin control - it's not like making a big fuss over this is going to make it be un-leaked. On the other hand, if the government puts a big enough spin on it, the odds are that they can strongly diminish any informing effect it would have for the public. They can't go back and hide it from the people they're fighting, but they have a pretty good shot of hiding it from their taxpaying voters and from the international community. Does it make any sense to hand them a win on that front? Any damage the info could do in a military sensehas already been done.
I doubt anyone in the DoD thinks they can un-leak the documents. But what they can do is make an impression on those in a position of controlling similar secrets. And possibly weaken the support structure around organizations like Wikileaks. This is more than simply muddying up the waters to ensure limit the scope of public education.
Having said that - to be sure, there's a huge PR issue involved. The US Government is certainly going to be involved in that fight as well. But the propaganda is thick from all parties involved. One should be wary of everything that touches this subject.
Slashdot Mirror
The quoted text wasn't ironic... but I think the comment on it was.
Yet again proving to the delight of insanely pedantic nit-pickers (that'd be me) that using physical security as an analogue to computer security is not especially helpful.
I completely agree (even if I'm enough of a sucker for conversation that I'll delve in to the analogy discussion). The rules of the digital world and the physical world are entirely different (even if the digital world is simply a limited subset of the physical).
Living in a remote area would be security. The remoteness is the barrier to entry.
The problem with that analogy is that a barrier to entry isn't the only aspect involved. All obscurity is a barrier to entry. The problem is that people's perception of the effectiveness of obscurity, of how much of a barrier is presented, is often surprisingly inaccurate.
Being in a remote area might not be much of a barrier if I have ways of discovering your address. Finding out your address is not only a remote location, but that location is a fortress dug in to the top of a mountain might present a different situation (assuming you've got good locks).
Of course - I find comparisons of physical world security with information security to be fundamentally flawed. There's similarities but the rules tend to be entirely different between the environments; there's only so much that can be done with the laws of physics while we can completely re-define protocols.
That kind of sounds like every press release from every security vendor who claims a secret sauce implementation. I don't see how their situation is "a special case."
Do you perhaps have some conspiracy theory prepared to answer your own question?
All computer security is through obscurity (passwords, encryption, both just security through obscurity). The lock on your homes door is security through obscurity (knowing the obscure key pattern).
Except, that isn't obscurity - that's a secret. The difference is subtle. However, one way to look at the issue is whether observation of a system will uncover the secret needed to defeat the system. I can study a cryptographic system without knowing how to defeat a given cryptographic key (unless that system is flawed). Likewise, buying the same brand lock shouldn't allow me to duplicate your house key (although many cheap home lock systems are pretty trivial to defeat - so maybe "security though obscurity" really does apply). Compare a house key to a "shave-and-a-haircut" knock. I can observe you using a key to get past a door without providing me the details to do the same if I don't posses a copy of your key. However, if I observe you doing the "shave-and-a-haircut" knock, I can then duplicate the same procedure myself.
I have not a lot of confidence, to say the least, in any government after some historial facts like that of Guatemala (every country has its own pearls -and time), but I agree it is not the best fit fot Afghanistan.
It really does get to be this forest of mirrors situation. Where are the realities and where are the deceptions? What deceptions exist from real conspiracies and what are created by our own perceptions and / or fantasies? This is the obvious down-side of these kinds of activities. Because the US has been involved in this behavior (with varying degrees of success) in the past, people (such as yourself) are inclined to be suspect that behavior in all future dealings.
I don't find the existence of these operations in themselves to be discomforting. Any actor in geopolitics will employ these tactics to one degree or another. The US would be foolish to not consider these tactics as well.
The issue is when to employ any given action. The problem with a lot of these historical events (including the one you linked to) is that actions were taken based on entirely incorrect assumptions. Its even possible that sometimes actions were taken with less stringent requirements for proof since these actions weren't perceived as having the same cost as conventional military activity.
While the city may have a shitty IT setup, is that illegal? Probably not. However what Childs did WAS illegal.
It should be noted that Childs was convicted as much on intent as what he did. One of the more enlightening aspects of that aforementioned CCIE juror's comments was the background that lead them to believe that Childs' behavior was not based on being a dedicated admin, but rather out of an intention to retain control for personal gain. The environment lacked policy that would have greatly clarified the situation and given Childs much less leeway to act (or it might have saved his ass if he was following the letter of that policy). What Childs did wasn't illegal per se. Why he did it betrayed an illegal action that might have been accepted in different circumstances. It was also noted that the Jury found it rather distasteful that this went to court.
Did a good job? The guy was keeping passwords and router configs in his head. He may be the best IOS programmer around, but that isn't the mark of a good job, that's the mark of an incredible idiot.
No - he was keeping them on media that he carried on his person.
It was a totalitarian, fascist dictatorship
Well, yes. It was. But the trains ran on time.
Don't get me wrong. I don't support the Saddam regime nor am I advocating sympathy for the devil. But if you want to look at the history with the intent to understand the situation, you have to look at the broad scope of things. And you have to consider the viewpoints of the actors involved. It's complex. But then, much of history (especially in the Middle East) is.
It is a conspiracy theory when applied to Afghanistan. You can not take one piece of history and apply it equally to every other event in history.
Of course, if I were you, I'd have picked the US involvement in Iran over this. But then, Guatemala doesn't hit home for me.
To me it is a very basic strategy.
1. give power to the enemy of your enemy with weapons until there are no enemies.
2. When they have won, you exterminate them. This way you are saving the people from the attrocities they did, thus appearing as "good".
3. Profit!!
By all means - don't let history get in the way of a good conspiracy theory backed up by a Southpark joke.
No, I'm sure he believes that the US elects to get involved out of the interest of making it easy for some corporations to make money.
One fallacy is as good as another, I suppose.
Look back 30 years, how the hell do you think the Taliban got into power? Oh wait, back then Russia was the "bad guy" and fundamentalist Islam was the "good guy" so we ended up supplying them with guns, bombs, etc.
The Taliban as they are now didn't exist 30 years ago. The US supported various mujahideen factions. In the power vacuum left by Soviet withdrawl, those factions fought each other. Pakistan wanted both influence in the region and to stop hijacking of their trucking routes in to the country so they put heavy support behind a small student group that, in turn, fought various mujahideen who causing problems. That's how the Taliban got in to power.
The notion that the US is behind the Taliban is, at best, a very loose interpretation. Certainly, US influence was felt in the region and armaments were probably left over from the fight with the Soviets. But ironically, if the US was truely involved in an imperialistic war, there would have been no opportunity for the Taliban. As it is, the US lost interest in Afghanistan as soon as the Soviets left and left it to fall in to chaos.
How do you think Hussein got into power? Oh wait we helped him get into power...
Saddam got in to power by being a major political leader in a group that overthrew the former government via a coup. He then consolidated his power over several years before managing to take the leadership reins from the ailing leader at the time. He further cemented his position by having a number of members in his political party denounced as traitors and executed.
Saddam managed to get Soviet support early on. However, Iraq later cracked down on Iraqi communists and Iraq began to favor the West. The French were major supporters and consequently the vast majority of Iraq's military armament comes from Soviet and French sources.
The US certainly supported Saddam's Iraq. It was a modernized, secular government in a region that lacked many similar examples. It countered Iranian influence in the region. And, to some extent, supporting Iraq helped counter Soviet influence as well. However, the notion that the US put Saddam in to power is absurd.
The sooner we end the wars the better it is for the US and the rest of the world.
I completely agree. But it would seem the world is not that kind of place and won't be any time soon.
Democracy can only work if people have access to -all- the information available to make an informed decision.
Really? All or nothing, huh? Then how do you work out the need for secrecy and intelligence which, in turn, has proven to be a major part of any nation's security
I can agree that we need good information. We need to be wary of propoganda. We need proof to back up claims. And we need oversight of all aspects of government. But that is hardly access to all information available.
It is important to end imperialistic wars because it -always- bites us in the ass later on. These ever so evil Taliban fighters? Oh wait we supported them against the "evil" USSR. Saddam Hussein? Oh wait we helped him too...
If you think the US supports human rights you are sadly mistaken, imperialistic wars like the wars in the middle east and Vietnam have -always- ended up in a net loss for human rights and a net loss for the world.
Ahhh. You're one of these people who believe that the US operates in a vacuum; that there are no other players on the world stage. You believe that the US elects to get involved just out of a mean spirit. And if the US would only bury it's head, nothing bad would ever happen in the world. Just like in the 1930s.
As for the claims that the original trilogy attracted adults, I did a quick google for the old 1977 crowds and they all look 30 or younger. The films appealed mainly to the young people, just like today's movie do. (The favored demo is 35 or younger.)
What exactly is your definition of "adult"? :P
Don't get me wrong - I do see the flaws in the films. But I find that they've aged far better than the "rose colored glasses" dismissal allows.
But hey - to each their own.
I don't know if I'd go so far as buy episodes of Hogan's Heroes, but I have watched a few episodes and enjoyed them. It's not that there's zero entertainment in these old works. It's just that the flaws are more apparent then when I was a kid.
Honestly the first 3 were just as targeted. We look at them thru rose colored glasses at this point. Dont watch them for e few years come back and watch them anew.
Been there, done that. And I don't buy it. I enjoy those first three movies still today. Part of it is, admitedly, nostalgia. But I do like the movies themselves.
I've gone back to watch old TV shows I liked as a kid for nostalgia's sake as well. The A-Team. Hogan's Heroes. Buck Rogers. I cringe a bit when I watch them. Now I understand why my father would roll his eyes when I eagerly popped down in the beanbag to watch a show. I still get why I liked them back when I was a kid. But I suppose my expectations have changed and the old shows just didn't age along with me. I have found that while I am a sucker for nostalgia, it does not rule my view.
A 30 min pod race in the middle of the movie did NOTHING to advance the plot. Next time you watch it, skip it. You will find the movie is much better.
Oddly enough - I find that the movie would have been better if it were nothing but the pod racing and the final light-saber battle. Granted - it's not much of a movie at that point.
See Billy gank that lowbie.
Billy is a dick.
Lame, Billy, lame.
Yeah - comic and game conventions are going to be a blast. "Let me tell you about my character.... or better yet, here's the book!"
The idea is that the end user wouldn't notice delays in HTTP traffic but would likely notice it with VOIP, video, etc. Different services have different requirements; Quality of Service.
This is widely accepted. However, it isn't without debate.
Yeah. Good luck getting that meme going.
I'd hardly call that reasonable. It was a nice try; worth giving a shot. But I can't find fault in the US Government's refusal to assist in Wikileaks' actions. And I hardly find that as an excuse to ignore Wikileaks' responsibility in the actions they take.
I get that Wikileaks feels that they have a moral imperative to take these actions. But a part of taking that stance is accepting the responsibility of those actions.
Yeah, I really wish he'd asked the White House or Pentagon for help in redacting these documents.
...
Oh wait he did and they said no.
So what you're saying is that they redacted the entire collection of documents, he didn't agree, and then he went ahead and published. And after having taken this action, he is no longer responsible for that action because the US Government didn't agree with it.
Here's the thing - nothing really can remain secret for long. At least, not from the guys you're actively engaged in fighting against. Beyond immediate operations, the only people you can hope to hoodwink for long are your own citizens by way of information control and propaganda.
It's not a given that every military secret will be discovered. Look through history and you'll find examples of secrets that were uncovered and secrets that remained secret for years. It all depends on the nature of those secrets and the actors involved.
Are there ethical (and practical) issues involved in releasing this info? Are there similar issues involved in not releasing this info? Certainly. But in all likelihood, the harm involved in releasing it will be very limited. Anyone who could make use of it in a military sense probably already knows most of this stuff. Not all...but probably most. So what remains? It seems like it would be reasonable to conclude that the main effect is to inform the American public and international community - people the American government very much wants to keep in the dark, but people who they have no right to keep in the dark.
I don't believe it's a given that there is not sufficient military value in this information. Nor do I agree that there is significant information for the public. I find the documents fascinating (and more than a few incidents described tragic) - but there seems to be a distinct lack of smoking guns in the mix.
Anyway, the cat's out of the bag now. Everything you're seeing is spin control - it's not like making a big fuss over this is going to make it be un-leaked. On the other hand, if the government puts a big enough spin on it, the odds are that they can strongly diminish any informing effect it would have for the public. They can't go back and hide it from the people they're fighting, but they have a pretty good shot of hiding it from their taxpaying voters and from the international community. Does it make any sense to hand them a win on that front? Any damage the info could do in a military sensehas already been done.
I doubt anyone in the DoD thinks they can un-leak the documents. But what they can do is make an impression on those in a position of controlling similar secrets. And possibly weaken the support structure around organizations like Wikileaks. This is more than simply muddying up the waters to ensure limit the scope of public education.
Having said that - to be sure, there's a huge PR issue involved. The US Government is certainly going to be involved in that fight as well. But the propaganda is thick from all parties involved. One should be wary of everything that touches this subject.