Hate to break it to you but Slashdot is behind the trend on this one. If this is a big surprise for you, then at least Slashdot posting about it clued YOU in. It may be old news to your kids.
Security is almost by definition an illusion - by making information accessible to someone, you make it potentially available to anyone. Completely enforcing security ideals to a logical extreme would result in complete paralysis, depleting enormous resources along the way (see: the cold war). If you want to keep anything secret, you have to limit its use, and limit the amount of things you keep secret - otherwise the cost of maintaining that secret status becomes prohibitive and unrealistic.
...
Then again - security always seems to be a 'temporary' thing, that happens to almost always be escalating. Don't you love your family enough to own the latest and greatest killing machine? Inside most real life monsters lies the desire for securing safety for one's interests - with the lines of priorities drawn right through the property/face of someone else. That's not something we're likely to be getting over anytime soon, conflicting interests, and aggressive 'defense'.
The problem is the mis-perception that security is a final goal or destination; that one becomes "secure". The reality is that security is a process. Key parts of that process is identifying threats, determining the level of risk attributed to a threat, determining which threats can be mitigated, and then doing so. The trouble is that we generally aren't very good at this. We don't always continually look for threats. We have a hard time identifying real risk. And in doing so, we often either ignore real risks or take drastic steps to mitigate unlikely risks. And even if you've done a good job identifying and mitigating real risks, that doesn't mean you don't have to deal with new threats and/or changing risks... or that a low level risk won't strike home. Which is fine if you understand the nature of security. Most people don't.
No, security is not in itself an illusion but the perception that one is absolutely "secure" is. And yes, security is a constantly shifting process - or at least it should be.
It's the same thing with 'virtual borders' as it is with real borders - you can't keep eyes, or even cameras, or even CPU cycles going on all potential borders. It just won't work - you have to observe effects and target responses, use honeypots and similar tactics, and marshal your resources to minimize the effects of breaches. Better yet, improve relations and economies on both sides of the border, and make such breaches meaningless while still enforcing your limited security goals - you'll be serving all your underlying motivations at the same time.
I'd note that physical security and information security overlap but they are not the same. One should not compare physical borders with digital boundaries. One has little control over physical borders or the laws of physics but one has complete control over digital boundaries and use of protocols. It's more complex than that, of course. And there ARE occasional similarities. But there are fundamental differences that make a lot of these cross-over comparisons wildly inaccurate.
Besides, I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density, instead of obscurity through privacy. Billions of people on this earth, nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net. Embrace it. Eventually, if enough personal data gets out there, it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available.
I completely disagree. Data mining becomes more effective the more information it has. Connections begin to form. Bogus information begins to stand out. Missing information becomes apparent. Public information transforms in to private information and private information uncovers secrets. The more data points you have to work with, the more successful you are going to be making these connections.
Physical commodities are given value based on scarcity (real or perceived) while raw data enjoys a network effect. So anyone in the business of data analysis is going to be pleased to get as much information as they can get their hands on. There was a time where storage and processing power were expensive. However, as noted by Moore's Law, these things are only getting cheaper and more plentiful. So even "worthless" information costs little to store until a large enough amount has been amassed to become valuable.
Farmville is drivel, but it's not malware. Malware isn't just pointless and stupid and unnecessary.
OK, sure - Farmville isn't malware per se; the comparison was meant to be humorous. But it's more than just a waste of time. Farmville and other games from Zynga are vehicles for fraud, scams, and other such scum behavior. As malware is usually a vehicle for the same sort of scum, the comparison isn't THAT far fetched.
Performing first aid does not make you a surgeon and standing in front of a judge does not make you a lawyer. Again - my criticism is solely on your repeated statements that are presented as if they were fact, often using bogus quotes and language that implies that you're referencing a source. Then when challenged on that, you have no reference but your own material. Everything else is a distraction from that point.
Having said that - kudos for fighting the good fight. I say that with no hint of cynicism. I have no idea what legal issues you've been involved in. But no matter what the cause is / was, I honestly believe there's something fundamental to individuals standing up for their Constitutional rights.
So much for avoiding an attempt to "try to steal focus from those who have almost no freedoms to speak of."
Immediately after 9/11 the public criticism was that the government did not know enough. They should have prevented it.
The problem is that you can't scream for privacy, yet expect the government to know everything at the same time. Pick your poison. The public clammored for the government to have more power.
Yes - the two aren't very rational, are they? So one has to give. I'll take privacy and freedom. You won't find me screaming that the Government didn't know enough. I didn't call for Congress to "do something." And I found it much more interesting in what our Intelligence community DID know versus what they didn't.
Another aspect of this "failure of intelligence" to come out was our reliance on technology in regions like Afghanistan. The country was a very hard target for human intelligence. It was a difficult region to recruit in and especially difficult for agents to move around in. The society is very closed. And the Taliban kept things locked down tight.
This is not a goal the US needs to achieve. There's always lessons to be learned and improvements to be made. But at some point, one has to accept that the very freedoms that make us great also involve immediate risk.
I haven't read the entirety of the bill. (I've only skimmed the table of contents). But I do believe that it was passed with the honest intent of trying to make the nation more secure for foreign threats.
In that regard, the name Patriot Act isn't some lie meant to cover up the true insidious purpose.
I wouldn't be shocked if the bill was a knee-jerk overreaction that grants too much power to the government.
Yes, yes... the road to Hell is paved in good intentions. That doesn't change where the road leads.
But back to the choice of naming. I often find it sickening that the very individuals charged with protecting the fundamental aspects of our way of life are often the first to trample and ignore them. And they're cheered on by people who will wrap themselves in the Flag at the drop of a hat. Maybe Congress wasn't so jaded as to intentionally mis-name this Act. But surely someone had to have read the thing and realized there were some fundamental issues. Of course, you're here defending the Act while never having read it - it's likely much of Congress voted for it with the same degree of insight.
Even with the Patriot Act, the US government needs judges to issue orders to gain access to our emails.
Given the choice, I'd pick the PATRIOT Act over Iran any day without pausing to consider. My comment is glib observation on how governments like to name things that do the exact opposite of their namesake. It is not an attempt to vilify the US or deflect criticism of Iran.
With that in mind, I'll avoid hijacking the thread in to some debate on the minutia of US law, legislation, or (even worse) politics.
Those of us in the US will understand the language. Iran has a central, government email system to build trust. We have the PATRIOT Act to protect freedom.
If you're so sure you're right, send them an email and ask them if they ever turn over personal information without a warrant issued by a judge who has jurisdiction. They should welcome the chance to clarify things.
I'm not interested in doing your legwork for you. And I'm not after negating the privacy issue. The issue that I see is that you're throwing these quotes around like they come from a statement made by Google. However, they are only your own loose interpretation of a privacy policy document. You have no legal background that would offer insight as to what that legal language means nor do you have any additional sources to otherwise strengthen your interpretation. In short, stop presenting things as fact that are not fact.
Not this again. There is nothing that backs up your claim. Yeah - Google being a central clearing house of personal information is a risk. And it's one people should take pause to consider. But let's have them thinking about the real issues, not phantoms.
None the less, this is a legal situation where Google may be compelled to share private information that doesn't involve a warrant. And if they are so compelled, they must comply and, in doing so, they would also be meeting their privacy policy.
But not all those companies that flounder are set up to be bought. Sure - they exist. And maybe more so now than before. But there are plenty of companies who rocked the industry and then stumbled to become footnotes in history. And, more to my point, quite often those companies fall because the thing that made them great gets usurped by the next up-and-coming disruptive change / technology / company.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sun was working hard to find a good buyer for awhile. Some would claim that the writing has been on the wall for some time; that Sun's days were numbered as the industry relegated them to niche and then began eating away at their niche.
Now, really good leadership would have recognized these changes and found a way to move with them. But then, is that always possible?
This seems to be a very successful formula for many executives over the last decade. Not that society benefits from all this "creative destruction" to enrich a few people.
But to be fair - isn't this the real story of Silicon Valley? It seems there's always a failing company that was the new, disruptive company not long before that. Of course, most companies never get to be the new success. And a very few companies survive success.
Heck - a company could be doing everything it was doing during it's halcyon days and yet still go out of business because of other influences in the industry around it. In short, it doesn't have to be YOU driving the company in to the ground. Others can do that very well for you.
The taliban are actually opposed to drugs production. While they were in power, the area of opium cultures fell down incredibely quick. It came back thanks to the war. The drugs lords are a faction different from the talibans.
Which is all nice and fine as long as the Taliban remains in control. But what happened after?
There are reports that the Taliban are now involved in the drug trade again. Despite the use of this as obvious propaganda, it isn't that far fetched as the Taliban initially hadn't had a problem with opium since it was a drug for foreigners (hashish was another matter). Of course, it's also very likely that the Taliban is only one of many players in the increased trade. Narcotics is a major industry and quickly becomes prominent in any unstable environment. It becomes a vehicle for not only criminals and warlords but other traders in power to include intelligence agencies and legitimate businesses.
Nope, Subpoenas are not an equivalent mechanism to a search warrant. They are an order for you to appear in court, with perhaps additionally an order to bring certain evidence with you.
Which could end up being just as effective as producing a warrant for an agent to search themselves. So then, there are situations where Google may be compelled to provide personal information that does not include a warrant. Thus, specifying the need for a warrant would be inaccurate and counter to Google's legal requirements.
And no, we're not just talking about governments here. Private individuals only need to send a copy of a lawsuit to google to give google the "reasonable expectation" that they "could" get an "enforceable court order" for google to roll over on you.
Again - your own personal interpretation of the text. And again, not a demonstration of Google stating that they will provide information on the mere possibility that a court order could be gained.
I agree in so far as there's a real risk and Google deserves scrutiny. But let's not get carried away and put words in Google's mouth ("Google has said that they don't need a subpoena, just a belief that the cops *could* get a subpoena, and they'll roll over on you.") or fill out their business plans for them ("In this case, their cooperation with the police is part of their trying to build goodwill for their next step - charging for "pro-active" screening of user data, not just for advertisers, but for governments").
The problem I saw was that many fans expected him to create new stories that were aimed at the now 30 year olds who watched the originals as children. I was still able to watch them and enjoy them just not with same wide eyed wonder, but then I wasnt supposed to, they werent made for me, they were made for my kids.
Whenever the conversation turns to Star Wars, there's always someone who brings up the theory of target audiences and nostalgia-tinted sunglasses. We are lead to believe that being kids greatly influenced our perception of the first 3 Star Wars movies and later it is nostalgia that continues to make us hold them in high esteem. I don't buy it.
As an adult, I've watched all the Star Wars films a few times. Heck, I even went to the theater to watch the re-released original series. And whenever I do, I notice that there was something to the first 3 films that the latest 3 films miss. At this point, we come to nostalgia. Can I be sure that nostalgia doesn't affect my judgement by giving more credit to the works from my childhood? I'm pretty sure. Nostalgia is a big thing right now. You can go back and watch all manner of old TV shows that I grew up watching as a kid. And while some are still entertaining, few meet my memories. I can now see why my father would roll his eyes when I dropped down in front of the A-Team each week. I can recognize that the original Star Wars films aren't quite the amazing works that I saw them as a kid. But as an adult, I still find them to be fun with a lot of that initial charm in tact. And that charm is lacking in Lucas' recent works (including Indiana Jones).
There is no other "equivalent mechanism" to a warrant.
Really. There's no such thing as a subpoena. And every governmental body that has a jurisdiction under which Google operates uses warrants. I think you might be missing a bigger view.
Slashdot Mirror
And all that would probably be a lot more entertaining if the trolls were half as clever as they thought they were.
Yes - because hundreds of years of face-to-face warfare sure demonstrated that this theory pans out.
Hate to break it to you but Slashdot is behind the trend on this one. If this is a big surprise for you, then at least Slashdot posting about it clued YOU in. It may be old news to your kids.
Security is almost by definition an illusion - by making information accessible to someone, you make it potentially available to anyone. Completely enforcing security ideals to a logical extreme would result in complete paralysis, depleting enormous resources along the way (see: the cold war). If you want to keep anything secret, you have to limit its use, and limit the amount of things you keep secret - otherwise the cost of maintaining that secret status becomes prohibitive and unrealistic.
...
Then again - security always seems to be a 'temporary' thing, that happens to almost always be escalating. Don't you love your family enough to own the latest and greatest killing machine? Inside most real life monsters lies the desire for securing safety for one's interests - with the lines of priorities drawn right through the property/face of someone else. That's not something we're likely to be getting over anytime soon, conflicting interests, and aggressive 'defense'.
The problem is the mis-perception that security is a final goal or destination; that one becomes "secure". The reality is that security is a process. Key parts of that process is identifying threats, determining the level of risk attributed to a threat, determining which threats can be mitigated, and then doing so. The trouble is that we generally aren't very good at this. We don't always continually look for threats. We have a hard time identifying real risk. And in doing so, we often either ignore real risks or take drastic steps to mitigate unlikely risks. And even if you've done a good job identifying and mitigating real risks, that doesn't mean you don't have to deal with new threats and/or changing risks... or that a low level risk won't strike home. Which is fine if you understand the nature of security. Most people don't.
No, security is not in itself an illusion but the perception that one is absolutely "secure" is. And yes, security is a constantly shifting process - or at least it should be.
It's the same thing with 'virtual borders' as it is with real borders - you can't keep eyes, or even cameras, or even CPU cycles going on all potential borders. It just won't work - you have to observe effects and target responses, use honeypots and similar tactics, and marshal your resources to minimize the effects of breaches. Better yet, improve relations and economies on both sides of the border, and make such breaches meaningless while still enforcing your limited security goals - you'll be serving all your underlying motivations at the same time.
I'd note that physical security and information security overlap but they are not the same. One should not compare physical borders with digital boundaries. One has little control over physical borders or the laws of physics but one has complete control over digital boundaries and use of protocols. It's more complex than that, of course. And there ARE occasional similarities. But there are fundamental differences that make a lot of these cross-over comparisons wildly inaccurate.
I was going to make a similar comment. But alas, like said Goddesses, it is never to be.
Besides, I think we live in a world where we have obscurity through density, instead of obscurity through privacy. Billions of people on this earth, nearly a billion of them connected to the 'net. Embrace it. Eventually, if enough personal data gets out there, it may become worthless to mine it due to the sheer volume available.
I completely disagree. Data mining becomes more effective the more information it has. Connections begin to form. Bogus information begins to stand out. Missing information becomes apparent. Public information transforms in to private information and private information uncovers secrets. The more data points you have to work with, the more successful you are going to be making these connections.
Physical commodities are given value based on scarcity (real or perceived) while raw data enjoys a network effect. So anyone in the business of data analysis is going to be pleased to get as much information as they can get their hands on. There was a time where storage and processing power were expensive. However, as noted by Moore's Law, these things are only getting cheaper and more plentiful. So even "worthless" information costs little to store until a large enough amount has been amassed to become valuable.
Farmville is drivel, but it's not malware. Malware isn't just pointless and stupid and unnecessary.
OK, sure - Farmville isn't malware per se; the comparison was meant to be humorous. But it's more than just a waste of time. Farmville and other games from Zynga are vehicles for fraud, scams, and other such scum behavior. As malware is usually a vehicle for the same sort of scum, the comparison isn't THAT far fetched.
Performing first aid does not make you a surgeon and standing in front of a judge does not make you a lawyer. Again - my criticism is solely on your repeated statements that are presented as if they were fact, often using bogus quotes and language that implies that you're referencing a source. Then when challenged on that, you have no reference but your own material. Everything else is a distraction from that point.
Having said that - kudos for fighting the good fight. I say that with no hint of cynicism. I have no idea what legal issues you've been involved in. But no matter what the cause is / was, I honestly believe there's something fundamental to individuals standing up for their Constitutional rights.
> the only thing that's not too complicated
> for most of the public is malware?
Well, there's also Farmville.
...but you repeat yourself.
I'll focus on that instead.
So much for avoiding an attempt to "try to steal focus from those who have almost no freedoms to speak of."
Immediately after 9/11 the public criticism was that the government did not know enough. They should have prevented it.
The problem is that you can't scream for privacy, yet expect the government to know everything at the same time. Pick your poison. The public clammored for the government to have more power.
Yes - the two aren't very rational, are they? So one has to give. I'll take privacy and freedom. You won't find me screaming that the Government didn't know enough. I didn't call for Congress to "do something." And I found it much more interesting in what our Intelligence community DID know versus what they didn't.
Another aspect of this "failure of intelligence" to come out was our reliance on technology in regions like Afghanistan. The country was a very hard target for human intelligence. It was a difficult region to recruit in and especially difficult for agents to move around in. The society is very closed. And the Taliban kept things locked down tight.
This is not a goal the US needs to achieve. There's always lessons to be learned and improvements to be made. But at some point, one has to accept that the very freedoms that make us great also involve immediate risk.
I haven't read the entirety of the bill. (I've only skimmed the table of contents). But I do believe that it was passed with the honest intent of trying to make the nation more secure for foreign threats.
In that regard, the name Patriot Act isn't some lie meant to cover up the true insidious purpose.
I wouldn't be shocked if the bill was a knee-jerk overreaction that grants too much power to the government.
Yes, yes... the road to Hell is paved in good intentions. That doesn't change where the road leads.
But back to the choice of naming. I often find it sickening that the very individuals charged with protecting the fundamental aspects of our way of life are often the first to trample and ignore them. And they're cheered on by people who will wrap themselves in the Flag at the drop of a hat. Maybe Congress wasn't so jaded as to intentionally mis-name this Act. But surely someone had to have read the thing and realized there were some fundamental issues. Of course, you're here defending the Act while never having read it - it's likely much of Congress voted for it with the same degree of insight.
Even with the Patriot Act, the US government needs judges to issue orders to gain access to our emails.
Given the choice, I'd pick the PATRIOT Act over Iran any day without pausing to consider. My comment is glib observation on how governments like to name things that do the exact opposite of their namesake. It is not an attempt to vilify the US or deflect criticism of Iran.
With that in mind, I'll avoid hijacking the thread in to some debate on the minutia of US law, legislation, or (even worse) politics.
Those of us in the US will understand the language. Iran has a central, government email system to build trust. We have the PATRIOT Act to protect freedom.
is Buzz. Else they should be blocking every other web mail provider (hotmail, yahoo, etc)
Like everything else, they are fundamentalist emailers.
So you're saying the only thing that's not too complicated for most of the public is malware?
If you're so sure you're right, send them an email and ask them if they ever turn over personal information without a warrant issued by a judge who has jurisdiction. They should welcome the chance to clarify things.
I'm not interested in doing your legwork for you. And I'm not after negating the privacy issue. The issue that I see is that you're throwing these quotes around like they come from a statement made by Google. However, they are only your own loose interpretation of a privacy policy document. You have no legal background that would offer insight as to what that legal language means nor do you have any additional sources to otherwise strengthen your interpretation. In short, stop presenting things as fact that are not fact.
Not this again. There is nothing that backs up your claim. Yeah - Google being a central clearing house of personal information is a risk. And it's one people should take pause to consider. But let's have them thinking about the real issues, not phantoms.
None the less, this is a legal situation where Google may be compelled to share private information that doesn't involve a warrant. And if they are so compelled, they must comply and, in doing so, they would also be meeting their privacy policy.
Focus-follows-mouse made no sense back in the old days with Solaris work stations. It still makes no sense.
Focus-follows-mouse and multiple desktops are some of the features I really miss whenever I have to use a Windows desktop.
But not all those companies that flounder are set up to be bought. Sure - they exist. And maybe more so now than before. But there are plenty of companies who rocked the industry and then stumbled to become footnotes in history. And, more to my point, quite often those companies fall because the thing that made them great gets usurped by the next up-and-coming disruptive change / technology / company.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sun was working hard to find a good buyer for awhile. Some would claim that the writing has been on the wall for some time; that Sun's days were numbered as the industry relegated them to niche and then began eating away at their niche.
Now, really good leadership would have recognized these changes and found a way to move with them. But then, is that always possible?
This seems to be a very successful formula for many executives over the last decade. Not that society benefits from all this "creative destruction" to enrich a few people.
But to be fair - isn't this the real story of Silicon Valley? It seems there's always a failing company that was the new, disruptive company not long before that. Of course, most companies never get to be the new success. And a very few companies survive success.
Heck - a company could be doing everything it was doing during it's halcyon days and yet still go out of business because of other influences in the industry around it. In short, it doesn't have to be YOU driving the company in to the ground. Others can do that very well for you.
The taliban are actually opposed to drugs production. While they were in power, the area of opium cultures fell down incredibely quick. It came back thanks to the war. The drugs lords are a faction different from the talibans.
Which is all nice and fine as long as the Taliban remains in control. But what happened after?
There are reports that the Taliban are now involved in the drug trade again. Despite the use of this as obvious propaganda, it isn't that far fetched as the Taliban initially hadn't had a problem with opium since it was a drug for foreigners (hashish was another matter). Of course, it's also very likely that the Taliban is only one of many players in the increased trade. Narcotics is a major industry and quickly becomes prominent in any unstable environment. It becomes a vehicle for not only criminals and warlords but other traders in power to include intelligence agencies and legitimate businesses.
"Dude. As soon as Bill stops screwing around with card games, we're going to be set!"
"Why?"
"I just got a whole bunch of neg 7300 day exploits for Win95, dude. We're gonna be set."
"Cool. Hey.... have you even been born yet?"
"Awww crap..." (poof)
Nope, Subpoenas are not an equivalent mechanism to a search warrant. They are an order for you to appear in court, with perhaps additionally an order to bring certain evidence with you.
Which could end up being just as effective as producing a warrant for an agent to search themselves. So then, there are situations where Google may be compelled to provide personal information that does not include a warrant. Thus, specifying the need for a warrant would be inaccurate and counter to Google's legal requirements.
And no, we're not just talking about governments here. Private individuals only need to send a copy of a lawsuit to google to give google the "reasonable expectation" that they "could" get an "enforceable court order" for google to roll over on you.
Again - your own personal interpretation of the text. And again, not a demonstration of Google stating that they will provide information on the mere possibility that a court order could be gained.
I agree in so far as there's a real risk and Google deserves scrutiny. But let's not get carried away and put words in Google's mouth ("Google has said that they don't need a subpoena, just a belief that the cops *could* get a subpoena, and they'll roll over on you.") or fill out their business plans for them ("In this case, their cooperation with the police is part of their trying to build goodwill for their next step - charging for "pro-active" screening of user data, not just for advertisers, but for governments").
The problem I saw was that many fans expected him to create new stories that were aimed at the now 30 year olds who watched the originals as children. I was still able to watch them and enjoy them just not with same wide eyed wonder, but then I wasnt supposed to, they werent made for me, they were made for my kids.
Whenever the conversation turns to Star Wars, there's always someone who brings up the theory of target audiences and nostalgia-tinted sunglasses. We are lead to believe that being kids greatly influenced our perception of the first 3 Star Wars movies and later it is nostalgia that continues to make us hold them in high esteem. I don't buy it.
As an adult, I've watched all the Star Wars films a few times. Heck, I even went to the theater to watch the re-released original series. And whenever I do, I notice that there was something to the first 3 films that the latest 3 films miss. At this point, we come to nostalgia. Can I be sure that nostalgia doesn't affect my judgement by giving more credit to the works from my childhood? I'm pretty sure. Nostalgia is a big thing right now. You can go back and watch all manner of old TV shows that I grew up watching as a kid. And while some are still entertaining, few meet my memories. I can now see why my father would roll his eyes when I dropped down in front of the A-Team each week. I can recognize that the original Star Wars films aren't quite the amazing works that I saw them as a kid. But as an adult, I still find them to be fun with a lot of that initial charm in tact. And that charm is lacking in Lucas' recent works (including Indiana Jones).
There is no other "equivalent mechanism" to a warrant.
Really. There's no such thing as a subpoena. And every governmental body that has a jurisdiction under which Google operates uses warrants. I think you might be missing a bigger view.