The NIST most certainly can ban their use for government projects
Which part of "of course, some organizations may choose to make those guidelines mandatory" did you not understand?
So it's not just a matter of verifying the phone is a mobile phone. There are more sophisticated attacks that SMS auth allows. Also, you can clone someone's SIM card or use a social engineering attack to get a new SIM issued for a specific number.
Those are not "sophisticated attacks" and other two factor authentication schemes are subject to cloning and social engineering. It is exceptionally stupid to give up the extra security and simplicity of SMS authentication because of such objections.
Capitalism isn't a form of government, it's a form of economic organization. The corresponding form of government is called liberal (Europe) or libertarian (US). Liberalism can't do anything about the absurdities of life in general, but it can and does minimize the absurdities due to government, by minimizing government.
NIST can't "ban" the use of SMS for two factor authentication in general. Those are NIST guidelines (of course, some organizations may choose to make those guidelines mandatory). Furthermore, they don't seem to have a problem with SMS verification per se, but as the announcement itself says, they merely want people to verify that the phone number is an actual mobile phone, a reasonable recommendation.
When it comes to skills needed to run a country, being able to personally secure their "secret data" is very low on my list, and I would've expected it to be low for most people here.
It's very low on my list as well. What isn't low on my list, however, is the ability to pick competent experts and take their advice. Clinton failed to do that for her own email server, ignoring the experts in the federal government because she found their systems to be too inconvenient (and their systems were clearly a lot more secure than Clinton's). And apparently, the DNC is incapable of picking competent experts as well.
And setting up secure E-mail is a lot easier than all the other things Clinton needs experts for: health care, economics, immigration, taxes, infrastructure, etc. If she can't even follow sound expert advice for something as straightforward as email because it was too inconvenient for her, it's pretty likely that she is not going to follow expert advice in all those other areas either, but instead is going to make choices that serve her own interests instead.
So, yes, the inablity to select good experts and follow their advice is at the heart of Clinton's and the Democrats' failure. With email, the dysfunction is easy to spot, and even with email, they try to blame Republicans and Russia for their own screw-ups.
If you grant that the government has a legitimate national security interest in keeping the inquiries quiet, the courts will rule that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes the gag orders.
There is nothing in the article that suggests that these gag orders are limited to national security matters. And in fact, neither Microsoft nor I are arguing that the federal government can never impose gag orders. What they and I are saying is that the federal government can't just impose gag orders because it feels like it or because Congress passes a law; it does not have that power. It can possibly impose gag orders in limited sets of circumstances when justified by a specific power that it does have.
(The same comment applies to "national security"; the Constitution tasks the federal government with national defense not national security in the broad and expansive sense in which it is currently being used.)
Right, but how do we reverse the trend of consolidating and increasing power in D.C.
I think the US naturally tends to decentralize. New technologies tend to erode existing power structures (web, Bitcoin, designer drugs, 3D printing, sharing economy, etc.). It takes a lot of work to maintain consolidated, centralized power.
I think the best way to disrupt centralization is through creating new technologies faster and faster. Think of it as Malthusianism applied to government: technology grows geometrically, but laws only grow arithmetically. A second factor working in favor of liberty is the fact that government has become a dumping ground for technologically incompetent social science majors; they simply can't craft effective laws to govern stuff they don't understand. That's where all that chest pounding over "loopholes" comes from.
"Due to Federal Law, it is likely that the US Gov will be reading your email. This action does not need a search warrant or indeed any judicial overcight. We can't tell you if they are otherwise we will go to jail. Please be aware of this when using this facility."
That might just as well read:
"Due to [German/French/UK/...] Law, it is likely that the [German/French/UK/...] Gov will be reading your email. This action does not need a search warrant or indeed any judicial oversight. We can't tell you if they are otherwise we will go to jail. Please be aware of this when using this facility."
See, European governments have been doing this much longer than the US government.
And don't kid yourself, when those European governments want to keep your email in EU servers, it's not to protect you from the big, bad US government, it's to have easier access to your data.
The software giant's lawsuit alleging that customers have a constitutional right to know if the government has searched or seized their property should be thrown out, the government said in a court filing... The U.S. says there's no legal basis for the government to be required to tell Microsoft customers when it intercepts their e-mail...
The US Constitution is one of limited government and enumerated powers. I don't see a constitutional basis for the government to tell companies what they can and cannot tell their customers; which of the enumerated powers is that supposed to be?
So, while customers don't necessarily "have a constitutional right to know if the government has searched or seized their property", the government certainly has no constitutional right to prohibit companies from telling customers anything they want.
Well, we can't be all such great humanitarians as you obviously are, based on your support for Hillary and your vocal opposition to everybody else! Why, you have proven your moral superiority beyond doubt by your political positions.
In any case, Hillary has an easy way of avoiding a stroke: she shouldn't have run given her health history. But she is so obsessed with landing that job that neither national chaos nor self-preservation stop her.
Hillary may not be technically responsible for it, but she certainly has control over it; it would have taken just one word from her or her staff to get the DNC to beef up security. After all, the main scandal is about collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, and furthermore, Clinton's existing E-mail troubles mean that this makes the Democrats look even worse than they already did.
Clinton does not run the Democratic National Committee
But of course! Clinton has absolutely nothing to do with the DNC, whose leader just resigned because she was colluding with Clinton to sabotage the Sanders campaign. Absolutely nothing to do with one another, oh no!
Have fun voting for Trump...
If that's what it takes to keep Clinton from becoming president, that's just what I may do. I'm still hoping that Clinton will have a stroke on the campaign trail, or that Johnson's polls keep going up further.
Do you? The systems at the DNC do not belong to her and are not under her supervision or control. The DNC [wikipedia.org] is a private organization
Of course, they are "under her control": if she had told them to increase security, they would have done it. And, of course, the staff and experts that slosh around her campaign and the DNC are likely later to get involved in her administration.
Jesus, can you be anymore ignorant and/or partisan.
That's the question you should ask yourself. Personally, I'm not partisan, I'm simply anti-Clinton because I think she is incompetent, deeply corrupt, and dangerous.
They were stolen from DNC systems. They contain email related to the election not national security issues.
Do you really need to have this spelled out for you? She couldn't even protect E-mails that mattered a great deal to her, namely those related to the election; E-mails that would be highly damaging if released. Furthermore, this isn't an isolated incident, it comes on top of her careless and sloppy handling of her official E-mail account. There, we don't know whether anything actually got hacked because she has deleted and destroyed any logs and information that could be used to reconstruct that, but it's a good bet that it was.
What that tells you is that Clinton simply can't be trusted: she is incapable of securing secrets, whether it is DNC secrets or national security secrets, and worse yet, she blames others for her own mistakes and tries to cover them up in a way that it's impossible to even reconstruct how much damage was done.
By blaming Russia, Hillary's campaign has unequivocally confirmed that these E-mails were leaked by an outside organization. It doesn't matter which outsider leaked these E-mails of for what reason. If anybody outside the Democratic party can leak these E-mails, then Hillary didn't take sufficient care of them and can't be trusted with national security secrets. Thanks, Hillary, for confirming this once again.
China is the only country I could see actually attempting this
The Soviet Union used linear programming for central planning from the 1960's onwards. The approach didn't work, and it can't work. See the economic calculation problem for an explanation why it can't work.
And yet Trump won the primary and got the Republican nomination. When the Rancor goes down, maybe it's time to stop underestimating the weird kid with a lightsaber?
I hope I don't underestimate him; if Trump actually had political skill and power, as well as executive competence, he'd be much worse, because like Hillary he could then put his bad ideas into practice. And make no mistake about it: his bad ideas are not all that different from her bad ideas.
In fact, the idea that you can perfectly and rationally optimize economic output in that way has been around for at least a century. The problem is called the economic calculation problem. And in practice, this was how Communism 1.0 was supposed to work in the Soviet Union.
It is also well understood why it doesn't work; the Wikipedia article provides a good introduction, and von Mises' books provide deeper explanations.
Once you understand why that kind of rational planning doesn't work, you will also understand why other forms of "social market economies" also tend to fail to accomplish what they promise.
Winning the election is about winning the few undecided voters, and making sure your supporters turn out to vote at a higher rate than the opposing party's supporters.
Yes, and as a former registered Democrat and now independent, there is no way in hell that I'm going to go vote for Hillary.
And let's face it: Hillary does not have the personality of a cult leader.
Correct: she is uninspiring, divisive, and grating. Hillary has the personality of a greedy and corrupt politician.
That means Trump could easily win, not because Republican [and independent] voters really support him, but because they really hate Hillary - and he knows that
FTFY.
Which part of "on balance, I think Hillary will be worse" did you have problems with?
If very little gets done then whatever damage is caused by Trump's election will potentially be blamed on an obstructionist Congress
That makes no sense. If Trump can't do anything because Congress blocks him, then what is he to be blamed for?
rather than his ridiculous policies and incompetent political leadership
Trump's policies and leadership are no more or less ridiculous than Hillary's. That is, Hillary may be a better politician, but she is no better as an executive.
It would almost be better for Congress to give him everything he wants so the blame would fall squarely on his shoulders
Obama had a Democratic Congress for the first two years, and Democrats are still blaming Republicans for obstructing him in addressing the recession.
No, in fact, the best outcome would be for Congress to block either president. That seems more likely with Trump than with Hillary. Hillary has too many political connections and dirt on people so that she can exert pressure on Congress to get what she wants.
Trump makes a lot of noises about big changes because they sound good to the uneducated. On the other hand, Clinton has a much more complete and realistic picture of what she'd do with economic policy; with Clinton at the helm there would be many fewer changes than with Trump.
Let me paraphrase you. You are saying that Clinton is preferable to Trump because she would make fewer economic changes than Trump. Yet at the same time, you're saying that Trump has made virtually no concrete proposals for changes, while Clinton already has a long list of concrete changes lined up. It seems to me that you should conclude that Trump is preferable based on their proposals alone.
Of course, Trump has another advantage when it comes to the economy: Trump is a bumbling idiot with no support in Congress, so he couldn't get Congress to pass gas, let alone legislation.
Given that the last 8 years have seen the Dow recover from the Bush-induced lows in the 6000s to today's record highs in the 18000s and unemployment in America shrink below 5%, more of the same sounds much better than trusting that Trump's string of brainfarts will amount to an even bigger improvement.
The unemployment rate is low only because so many people have dropped out of the labor force entirely. The labor force participation rates among 16-54 year olds have all fallen; the only group that labor force participation has risen in is among the 54+, indicative of an inability to retire. Post-recession economic growth has been poor as well compared to other recessions. And Obama's massive crony capitalist handouts have utterly failed to live up to the economic promises he made for them while making the fiscal situation even worse.
So, if the promise is that Clinton will continue Obama's record on the economy, I'm not interested; as far as I'm concerned, even a bumbling idiot like Trump doing nothing for four years is likely better than that.
Yet you think Hillary will be worse than someone who always screws over those who does work for him.
Hillary has proven that she is corrupt and that she commands large amounts of political power, both through her own connections, her husband, and the Clinton Foundation.
Trump is an incompetent, pompous ass and a political newcomer, hated by both Democrats and Republicans. He is lucky if Congress doesn't cut the White House kitchen budget just out of spite. What Trump wants is pretty much irrelevant since he isn't going to get it.
So, yeah, on balance, I think Hillary will be worse.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no evidence that Bitcoin was used by terrorists. This is the usual statist bullshit coming from European governments.
There are better cars that a Honda Civic. That doesn't make a Honda Civic a bad car.
Which part of "of course, some organizations may choose to make those guidelines mandatory" did you not understand?
Those are not "sophisticated attacks" and other two factor authentication schemes are subject to cloning and social engineering. It is exceptionally stupid to give up the extra security and simplicity of SMS authentication because of such objections.
Capitalism isn't a form of government, it's a form of economic organization. The corresponding form of government is called liberal (Europe) or libertarian (US). Liberalism can't do anything about the absurdities of life in general, but it can and does minimize the absurdities due to government, by minimizing government.
NIST can't "ban" the use of SMS for two factor authentication in general. Those are NIST guidelines (of course, some organizations may choose to make those guidelines mandatory). Furthermore, they don't seem to have a problem with SMS verification per se, but as the announcement itself says, they merely want people to verify that the phone number is an actual mobile phone, a reasonable recommendation.
It's very low on my list as well. What isn't low on my list, however, is the ability to pick competent experts and take their advice. Clinton failed to do that for her own email server, ignoring the experts in the federal government because she found their systems to be too inconvenient (and their systems were clearly a lot more secure than Clinton's). And apparently, the DNC is incapable of picking competent experts as well.
And setting up secure E-mail is a lot easier than all the other things Clinton needs experts for: health care, economics, immigration, taxes, infrastructure, etc. If she can't even follow sound expert advice for something as straightforward as email because it was too inconvenient for her, it's pretty likely that she is not going to follow expert advice in all those other areas either, but instead is going to make choices that serve her own interests instead.
So, yes, the inablity to select good experts and follow their advice is at the heart of Clinton's and the Democrats' failure. With email, the dysfunction is easy to spot, and even with email, they try to blame Republicans and Russia for their own screw-ups.
There is nothing in the article that suggests that these gag orders are limited to national security matters. And in fact, neither Microsoft nor I are arguing that the federal government can never impose gag orders. What they and I are saying is that the federal government can't just impose gag orders because it feels like it or because Congress passes a law; it does not have that power. It can possibly impose gag orders in limited sets of circumstances when justified by a specific power that it does have.
(The same comment applies to "national security"; the Constitution tasks the federal government with national defense not national security in the broad and expansive sense in which it is currently being used.)
That's what unfree governments are: absurd. It doesn't matter whether they are theocratic, socialist, communist, fascist, or progressive.
I think the US naturally tends to decentralize. New technologies tend to erode existing power structures (web, Bitcoin, designer drugs, 3D printing, sharing economy, etc.). It takes a lot of work to maintain consolidated, centralized power.
I think the best way to disrupt centralization is through creating new technologies faster and faster. Think of it as Malthusianism applied to government: technology grows geometrically, but laws only grow arithmetically. A second factor working in favor of liberty is the fact that government has become a dumping ground for technologically incompetent social science majors; they simply can't craft effective laws to govern stuff they don't understand. That's where all that chest pounding over "loopholes" comes from.
That might just as well read:
"Due to [German/French/UK/...] Law, it is likely that the [German/French/UK/...] Gov will be reading your email. This action does not need a search warrant or indeed any judicial oversight. We can't tell you if they are otherwise we will go to jail. Please be aware of this when using this facility."
See, European governments have been doing this much longer than the US government.
And don't kid yourself, when those European governments want to keep your email in EU servers, it's not to protect you from the big, bad US government, it's to have easier access to your data.
The US Constitution is one of limited government and enumerated powers. I don't see a constitutional basis for the government to tell companies what they can and cannot tell their customers; which of the enumerated powers is that supposed to be?
So, while customers don't necessarily "have a constitutional right to know if the government has searched or seized their property", the government certainly has no constitutional right to prohibit companies from telling customers anything they want.
Well, we can't be all such great humanitarians as you obviously are, based on your support for Hillary and your vocal opposition to everybody else! Why, you have proven your moral superiority beyond doubt by your political positions.
In any case, Hillary has an easy way of avoiding a stroke: she shouldn't have run given her health history. But she is so obsessed with landing that job that neither national chaos nor self-preservation stop her.
I prefer a president that voluntarily runs a transparent administration (Obama promised that but failed to deliver).
Being untransparent but having security is a distant second.
Being untransparent and leaking information to Russia and who knows where else is unacceptable.
Hillary may not be technically responsible for it, but she certainly has control over it; it would have taken just one word from her or her staff to get the DNC to beef up security. After all, the main scandal is about collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, and furthermore, Clinton's existing E-mail troubles mean that this makes the Democrats look even worse than they already did.
But of course! Clinton has absolutely nothing to do with the DNC, whose leader just resigned because she was colluding with Clinton to sabotage the Sanders campaign. Absolutely nothing to do with one another, oh no!
If that's what it takes to keep Clinton from becoming president, that's just what I may do. I'm still hoping that Clinton will have a stroke on the campaign trail, or that Johnson's polls keep going up further.
Of course, they are "under her control": if she had told them to increase security, they would have done it. And, of course, the staff and experts that slosh around her campaign and the DNC are likely later to get involved in her administration.
That's the question you should ask yourself. Personally, I'm not partisan, I'm simply anti-Clinton because I think she is incompetent, deeply corrupt, and dangerous.
Do you really need to have this spelled out for you? She couldn't even protect E-mails that mattered a great deal to her, namely those related to the election; E-mails that would be highly damaging if released. Furthermore, this isn't an isolated incident, it comes on top of her careless and sloppy handling of her official E-mail account. There, we don't know whether anything actually got hacked because she has deleted and destroyed any logs and information that could be used to reconstruct that, but it's a good bet that it was.
What that tells you is that Clinton simply can't be trusted: she is incapable of securing secrets, whether it is DNC secrets or national security secrets, and worse yet, she blames others for her own mistakes and tries to cover them up in a way that it's impossible to even reconstruct how much damage was done.
By blaming Russia, Hillary's campaign has unequivocally confirmed that these E-mails were leaked by an outside organization. It doesn't matter which outsider leaked these E-mails of for what reason. If anybody outside the Democratic party can leak these E-mails, then Hillary didn't take sufficient care of them and can't be trusted with national security secrets. Thanks, Hillary, for confirming this once again.
The Soviet Union used linear programming for central planning from the 1960's onwards. The approach didn't work, and it can't work. See the economic calculation problem for an explanation why it can't work.
I hope I don't underestimate him; if Trump actually had political skill and power, as well as executive competence, he'd be much worse, because like Hillary he could then put his bad ideas into practice. And make no mistake about it: his bad ideas are not all that different from her bad ideas.
In fact, the idea that you can perfectly and rationally optimize economic output in that way has been around for at least a century. The problem is called the economic calculation problem. And in practice, this was how Communism 1.0 was supposed to work in the Soviet Union.
It is also well understood why it doesn't work; the Wikipedia article provides a good introduction, and von Mises' books provide deeper explanations.
Once you understand why that kind of rational planning doesn't work, you will also understand why other forms of "social market economies" also tend to fail to accomplish what they promise.
Yes, and as a former registered Democrat and now independent, there is no way in hell that I'm going to go vote for Hillary.
Correct: she is uninspiring, divisive, and grating. Hillary has the personality of a greedy and corrupt politician.
FTFY.
Which part of "on balance, I think Hillary will be worse" did you have problems with?
That makes no sense. If Trump can't do anything because Congress blocks him, then what is he to be blamed for?
Trump's policies and leadership are no more or less ridiculous than Hillary's. That is, Hillary may be a better politician, but she is no better as an executive.
Obama had a Democratic Congress for the first two years, and Democrats are still blaming Republicans for obstructing him in addressing the recession.
No, in fact, the best outcome would be for Congress to block either president. That seems more likely with Trump than with Hillary. Hillary has too many political connections and dirt on people so that she can exert pressure on Congress to get what she wants.
Let me paraphrase you. You are saying that Clinton is preferable to Trump because she would make fewer economic changes than Trump. Yet at the same time, you're saying that Trump has made virtually no concrete proposals for changes, while Clinton already has a long list of concrete changes lined up. It seems to me that you should conclude that Trump is preferable based on their proposals alone.
Of course, Trump has another advantage when it comes to the economy: Trump is a bumbling idiot with no support in Congress, so he couldn't get Congress to pass gas, let alone legislation.
The unemployment rate is low only because so many people have dropped out of the labor force entirely. The labor force participation rates among 16-54 year olds have all fallen; the only group that labor force participation has risen in is among the 54+, indicative of an inability to retire. Post-recession economic growth has been poor as well compared to other recessions. And Obama's massive crony capitalist handouts have utterly failed to live up to the economic promises he made for them while making the fiscal situation even worse.
So, if the promise is that Clinton will continue Obama's record on the economy, I'm not interested; as far as I'm concerned, even a bumbling idiot like Trump doing nothing for four years is likely better than that.
Hillary has proven that she is corrupt and that she commands large amounts of political power, both through her own connections, her husband, and the Clinton Foundation.
Trump is an incompetent, pompous ass and a political newcomer, hated by both Democrats and Republicans. He is lucky if Congress doesn't cut the White House kitchen budget just out of spite. What Trump wants is pretty much irrelevant since he isn't going to get it.
So, yeah, on balance, I think Hillary will be worse.