*sigh* you really have not done any hardware hacking have you. Hacking requires flexibility - with a Pi you have a screen, or not. You could argue a PC isn't efficient for the same reason - you could have a game console, a tablet and an android netbook for the price of a decent workstation, and many people go that way, and it's not a bad thng. Generally hackers go with the more flexible kit though because it'll serve them for the tasks they haven't thought up yet.
Is it recommended for this use case? If not I'd be leary of using it without expert advice... it's very easy to break a secure system by applying it to problem domains for which it wasn't designed. Could an attacker infer things by watching changes over time?
Because it's good security practice to assume an adversary who is everywhere with huge resources perhaps? If you don't want to call your adversary NSA, call them the Gestapo or something (personally I call them "Chaos"... the evil team from Get Smart). They're always going to get in so why bother? Guess what... assuming that they will always get in is ALSO good security practice. You can continue to assume retarded script kiddies though... good luck with that.
...to think about this HARD and give us some solutions. An insecure solution seems to work just as well as a secure one, and I'm a geek generalist... and I know what I don't know. Hopefully the big guns have already been thinking about exactly this problem for a while. We know there's no such thing as perfect security... but it would be nice to have something good, and some best-practice guides so we know how to avoid compromising ourselves too obviously.
Some suggest contributions should be limited to a maximum amount per person. I also heard an interesting idea - that a certain amount of air-time should be given to political parties during campaigns as a condition on the TV spectrum rented from government.
Oops... I guess that'll learn me for not previewing :
Watch this TED talk... these kids teach themselves english, how to use a computer, how to use the Internet etc... all because they were given access to a computer literally in a hole in the wall.
Watch this TED talk... these kids teach themselves english, how to use a computer, how to use the Internet etc... all because they were given access to a computer literally in a hole in the wall.
ALL avenues should be persued. Yes... Go democracy! BUT the crypto experts should still sharpen their toolkits, the average I.T peon should sharpen their crypto knowledge and the average citizen should engage in some crypto arse covering even if it's 98% ineffective (and I hardly think it would be as bad as that). This NSA bruhaha is as good a motivation as any. . Also I think it's good practice to assume a very well funded and skilled adversary who is everywhere. Don't call them the NSA if that disturbs you... perhaps you might prefer to call this adversary "Chaos" (the name of the evil organisation from Get Smart).
I saw video of a senior nuclear physicist speaking in their parliment (or equivalent body). He was emotionally imploring the government to move people out, saying that fluid dynamics problems were the toughest problems in physics and that assuming a uniform distribution of fallout was a grave error. I'm paraphrasing a translation from a subtitled video which my Google-fu can't seem to find so unfortunately I can't cite my source. Does anyone remember this?
Other than the 70's aircraft hijackings have been so rare they practically never happen anyway, and the hijackings that have happened since 9/11 (granted, only a handful worldwide, which is usual) non-violence has largely been the strategy for survival.
Also, regarding FBI seeing what the NSA has... we already know the DEA does (look up "parallel construction"). Hopefully the natural internicine turf wars have kept the separation, but we haven't heard the FBI screaming very much about this invasion of their turf - that's a scarey sign.
Doing nothing is the right answer in some situations and the wrong answer in others... it depends on the tactics and goals of the aggressor, and unfortunately we don't get to know ahead of time. One day a load of passengers will probably be needlessly mowed down when a hijacker "only" wants to trade concessions for lives and there's a "we're all gonna die" stampede.
The problem is significantly bigger than spying on wives, ex-girlfriends etc... look at Russia for a state subverted by its security apparatus, and that is FAR from the first time something like that has happened. Terrorists can in no way endanger a state... they're just a handful of nutjobs unless their host populations are brutalised enough for them to get broader support..... ooops. OK, OK... but even if you opened your boarders to jihadist suicide bombers on purpose they in no way would endanger freedom in a western nation state (although life and limb not so much). My families history however helps me understand that a modern democracy with liberal values can be subverted from within, and there is value in freedom, even vs safety.
Sooo... because you don't trust your fellow man... you... put your trust in a group of your fellow men self-selected for a career in the spy game? *golf clap* Well played sir. THINK man... spying is separated into different agencies (foreign/domestic) etc... for a reason, and there's a reason those (now subverted) oversight courts exist.
There's only one thing that makes people put on an approximation of trustworthiness - accountability. Noone is arguing borders should be guarded, but the watchers should be watched. If the guard dog not only slipped its collar but broke the rules badly it should be punished.
Lefties can get a bit too hung up on fair play. I think Paul Keating had the best compromise... I heard in an interview with someone who had to negotiate with him that Keating had said a little apologetically "...just letting you know before we start that no matter what happens I'm here to win". That earned respect, at least from this one person who had sat across the table from him during feirce political combat.
Clapper has lied through his teeth many times before. Can anyone say this is any less false and self serving?
“Espionage is illegal and the clandestine service’s job is to break those laws without being caught. Espionage is deceptive, covert, underhand. It is probably the second oldest profession in the world.” This is a quote by Justice Robert Hope from his "Hope Report". This was released after Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam instigated a Royal Commission into the Australian secret service which unearthed (amongst other things) their involvement in Salvador Allende's overthrow. As an aside Gough, who was also a left leaning democratically elected leader, had already been deposed before this report came out in a highly irregular fashion in what was called "The Dismissal" by Govenor Sir John Kerr, who apparently was known as "our man Kerr" by the CIA (according to convicted spy Christopher Boyce.
After the Snowden revelations about security standards subversion I've been casting fresh eyes over the state of OSS security - parts are truly dismal. It may or may not actually be related to the NSA, that's immaterial really, but things are waaaay overcomplicated and flawed. For example, standard "wisdom" on OpenLDAP configuration is to never verify client side certificates, and I haven't seen anyone suggest specifying a olcTLSDHParamFile (which is required for perfect forward security). The whole idea of negotiating both encrypted and non-encrypted connections over one port is flawed - not only can a small configuration error cause all traffic to be suddenly in the clear, but a misconfigured client will send passwords in the clear no matter how locked down the server end is (although of course they won't connect successfully). OSS needs to get back to the Unix philosophy of keeping things simple... but it's in large players interests (be they big businesses or NSA or ???) to keep things so complicated the weekend hacker can no longer stay secure let alone make a useful contribution.
Actually, reading more carefully perhaps one could argue they did. I don't think that was the meaning, but if it was I guess they'd be saying "all men have the freedom to be good or evil, unless they don't in which case they are not free". I wouldn't agree - it sounds libertarian to me, and I'm not of that flavour and believe that some impingements on freedom given human failings are warranted. In the tradeoff between dangers, however, an out-of-control secret service is FAR more terrible than even a pedo epidemic, and terrorists are a pathetic crazy few unless they actually have a legitimate grevance or their host population is humiliated enough to give them popular support eg. parts of Iraq and Afghanistan. I've also got family history backing up the danger of secret services and state power too (disappeared family members, multiple state-based dark events to escape from over the years). Hell, democracy is based on division of power precicely because concentrated it is so corrupting and dangerous.
Noone said they did, so pack away that straw man.;) The argument is our privacy is sacred, and even though it can sometimes shield the guilty it shields the innocent from tyranny too.
Murderers have rights. Pedophiles have rights. Rapists have rights.
They have rights because the best of us and the worst of us share these rights. The powers-that-be want to nibble away at rights of the seemingly most deserving parts of the community, but we'll ALL suffer if these rights cease being universal. As someone else here quoted : "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken
Unless the sea water turns anoxic... which will happen more if phytoplankton is stressed beyond a certain point. Then you'll get suphur dioxide being produced by anaerobic bacteria, which will react with iron in seawater to produce sulphides. These are fine until they flow into a more oxygenated area when they react with the oxygen to produce sulphuric acid - this kills more phytoplankton and creates an anoxic environment for more anaerobic bacteria. That's what's called a feedback loop my friend.
Slashdot Mirror
*sigh* you really have not done any hardware hacking have you. Hacking requires flexibility - with a Pi you have a screen, or not. You could argue a PC isn't efficient for the same reason - you could have a game console, a tablet and an android netbook for the price of a decent workstation, and many people go that way, and it's not a bad thng. Generally hackers go with the more flexible kit though because it'll serve them for the tasks they haven't thought up yet.
Power requirements, form factor, price, weight... an ARM tablet, PC etc... just can't do the job. Stop pretending otherwise.
Is it recommended for this use case? If not I'd be leary of using it without expert advice... it's very easy to break a secure system by applying it to problem domains for which it wasn't designed. Could an attacker infer things by watching changes over time?
Because it's good security practice to assume an adversary who is everywhere with huge resources perhaps? If you don't want to call your adversary NSA, call them the Gestapo or something (personally I call them "Chaos"... the evil team from Get Smart). They're always going to get in so why bother? Guess what... assuming that they will always get in is ALSO good security practice. You can continue to assume retarded script kiddies though... good luck with that.
...to think about this HARD and give us some solutions. An insecure solution seems to work just as well as a secure one, and I'm a geek generalist... and I know what I don't know. Hopefully the big guns have already been thinking about exactly this problem for a while. We know there's no such thing as perfect security... but it would be nice to have something good, and some best-practice guides so we know how to avoid compromising ourselves too obviously.
Some suggest contributions should be limited to a maximum amount per person. I also heard an interesting idea - that a certain amount of air-time should be given to political parties during campaigns as a condition on the TV spectrum rented from government.
That's not what it has come to mean.
Are you reading a different conversation? That wasn't what he was saying... read the thread again.
Oops... I guess that'll learn me for not previewing : Watch this TED talk... these kids teach themselves english, how to use a computer, how to use the Internet etc... all because they were given access to a computer literally in a hole in the wall.
Watch this TED talk... these kids teach themselves english, how to use a computer, how to use the Internet etc... all because they were given access to a computer literally in a hole in the wall.
Rubbish...
ALL avenues should be persued. Yes... Go democracy! BUT the crypto experts should still sharpen their toolkits, the average I.T peon should sharpen their crypto knowledge and the average citizen should engage in some crypto arse covering even if it's 98% ineffective (and I hardly think it would be as bad as that). This NSA bruhaha is as good a motivation as any. . Also I think it's good practice to assume a very well funded and skilled adversary who is everywhere. Don't call them the NSA if that disturbs you... perhaps you might prefer to call this adversary "Chaos" (the name of the evil organisation from Get Smart).
I saw video of a senior nuclear physicist speaking in their parliment (or equivalent body). He was emotionally imploring the government to move people out, saying that fluid dynamics problems were the toughest problems in physics and that assuming a uniform distribution of fallout was a grave error. I'm paraphrasing a translation from a subtitled video which my Google-fu can't seem to find so unfortunately I can't cite my source. Does anyone remember this?
$5 wrench poisoning?
Other than the 70's aircraft hijackings have been so rare they practically never happen anyway, and the hijackings that have happened since 9/11 (granted, only a handful worldwide, which is usual) non-violence has largely been the strategy for survival.
Also, regarding FBI seeing what the NSA has... we already know the DEA does (look up "parallel construction"). Hopefully the natural internicine turf wars have kept the separation, but we haven't heard the FBI screaming very much about this invasion of their turf - that's a scarey sign.
Doing nothing is the right answer in some situations and the wrong answer in others... it depends on the tactics and goals of the aggressor, and unfortunately we don't get to know ahead of time. One day a load of passengers will probably be needlessly mowed down when a hijacker "only" wants to trade concessions for lives and there's a "we're all gonna die" stampede.
The problem is significantly bigger than spying on wives, ex-girlfriends etc... look at Russia for a state subverted by its security apparatus, and that is FAR from the first time something like that has happened. Terrorists can in no way endanger a state... they're just a handful of nutjobs unless their host populations are brutalised enough for them to get broader support. .... ooops. OK, OK... but even if you opened your boarders to jihadist suicide bombers on purpose they in no way would endanger freedom in a western nation state (although life and limb not so much). My families history however helps me understand that a modern democracy with liberal values can be subverted from within, and there is value in freedom, even vs safety.
Sooo... because you don't trust your fellow man... you... put your trust in a group of your fellow men self-selected for a career in the spy game? *golf clap* Well played sir. THINK man... spying is separated into different agencies (foreign/domestic) etc... for a reason, and there's a reason those (now subverted) oversight courts exist.
There's only one thing that makes people put on an approximation of trustworthiness - accountability. Noone is arguing borders should be guarded, but the watchers should be watched. If the guard dog not only slipped its collar but broke the rules badly it should be punished.
Lefties can get a bit too hung up on fair play. I think Paul Keating had the best compromise... I heard in an interview with someone who had to negotiate with him that Keating had said a little apologetically "...just letting you know before we start that no matter what happens I'm here to win". That earned respect, at least from this one person who had sat across the table from him during feirce political combat.
Clapper has lied through his teeth many times before. Can anyone say this is any less false and self serving?
“Espionage is illegal and the clandestine service’s job is to break those laws without being caught. Espionage is deceptive, covert, underhand. It is probably the second oldest profession in the world.” This is a quote by Justice Robert Hope from his "Hope Report". This was released after Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam instigated a Royal Commission into the Australian secret service which unearthed (amongst other things) their involvement in Salvador Allende's overthrow. As an aside Gough, who was also a left leaning democratically elected leader, had already been deposed before this report came out in a highly irregular fashion in what was called "The Dismissal" by Govenor Sir John Kerr, who apparently was known as "our man Kerr" by the CIA (according to convicted spy Christopher Boyce.
After the Snowden revelations about security standards subversion I've been casting fresh eyes over the state of OSS security - parts are truly dismal. It may or may not actually be related to the NSA, that's immaterial really, but things are waaaay overcomplicated and flawed. For example, standard "wisdom" on OpenLDAP configuration is to never verify client side certificates, and I haven't seen anyone suggest specifying a olcTLSDHParamFile (which is required for perfect forward security). The whole idea of negotiating both encrypted and non-encrypted connections over one port is flawed - not only can a small configuration error cause all traffic to be suddenly in the clear, but a misconfigured client will send passwords in the clear no matter how locked down the server end is (although of course they won't connect successfully). OSS needs to get back to the Unix philosophy of keeping things simple... but it's in large players interests (be they big businesses or NSA or ???) to keep things so complicated the weekend hacker can no longer stay secure let alone make a useful contribution.
Actually, reading more carefully perhaps one could argue they did. I don't think that was the meaning, but if it was I guess they'd be saying "all men have the freedom to be good or evil, unless they don't in which case they are not free". I wouldn't agree - it sounds libertarian to me, and I'm not of that flavour and believe that some impingements on freedom given human failings are warranted. In the tradeoff between dangers, however, an out-of-control secret service is FAR more terrible than even a pedo epidemic, and terrorists are a pathetic crazy few unless they actually have a legitimate grevance or their host population is humiliated enough to give them popular support eg. parts of Iraq and Afghanistan. I've also got family history backing up the danger of secret services and state power too (disappeared family members, multiple state-based dark events to escape from over the years). Hell, democracy is based on division of power precicely because concentrated it is so corrupting and dangerous.
Noone said they did, so pack away that straw man. ;) The argument is our privacy is sacred, and even though it can sometimes shield the guilty it shields the innocent from tyranny too.
Murderers have rights. Pedophiles have rights. Rapists have rights.
They have rights because the best of us and the worst of us share these rights. The powers-that-be want to nibble away at rights of the seemingly most deserving parts of the community, but we'll ALL suffer if these rights cease being universal. As someone else here quoted : "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken
Unless the sea water turns anoxic... which will happen more if phytoplankton is stressed beyond a certain point. Then you'll get suphur dioxide being produced by anaerobic bacteria, which will react with iron in seawater to produce sulphides. These are fine until they flow into a more oxygenated area when they react with the oxygen to produce sulphuric acid - this kills more phytoplankton and creates an anoxic environment for more anaerobic bacteria. That's what's called a feedback loop my friend.