Not just a personal resume, but a corporate resume. Past experience is a huge barrier to entry in gov't contracting, and so this was (will be?) an easy way to get that. It probably would have gone negative if the possibility was in place.
Anyway, it's all fun and games until the protests are filed and the lawyers get involved.
The government knows damn well that the TSA is security theater -- someone just forgot to tell this particular elected official.
Security theater can be great as a deterrent, but once everybody starts shouting about how it's not real, then its deterrent effect is decreased. So we can either tell people to shut up about it, or eliminate the facade, but increased security isn't an option, for two reasons:
1) Nobody can be vigilant against mostly non-existent threats for hours and days and years on end, except the most paranoid, OCD people, who aren't hireable anyway. That's why bouncers are effective -- people are constantly trying to sneak in, and bouncers know they're going to catch people. Most other security guards know they'll never, ever catch anyone, because nobody ever tries, and their attention suffers as a result. It's not that they don't want to do their job; it's that the reality of their job is incredibly tedious. It becomes about going through the motions most of the time, and maybe making an effort every so often.
2) Real security takes time, and that pisses people off. Maybe not in the immediate wake of a catastrophic security failure, but days or weeks later, it will. Patience will run thin. Moreover, the biggest advantage of flying is convenience -- it's fast. Once that convenience goes away, its popularity will decline.
Honestly, it doesn't matter though. Security has diminishing returns, like anything else, and no target can be fully protected. We can't, even collectively, control all of the variables. And when the risks are infinitesimal to begin with, then taking steps to lower them even more is usually a wasted effort. Better to focus on having procedures in place to handle things when the worst case happens.
Statistical analysis is a bit different from reading tea leaves. That's not to say they did it properly, but if they didn't, then they're only doing themselves a disservice by ignoring a potentially profitable customer base.
Personally, I would not/do not find it at all surprising that people who are getting shitfaced and posting about it on Facebook are a higher credit risk, because it's a pretty stupid thing to do, for many reasons. Either the individual doesn't know that, or doesn't care, but either way, it's not the sign of a responsible individual.
Your assets don't make you a risk; your (presumed) lack of history makes you a risk. Plenty of very wealthy people have filed for bankruptcy protection, presumably people who could have repaid their debts, at a high cost to their standard of living. If you lost your job, would you deplete your savings to repay creditors, or would you try to hold on to what you have? People tend to be loss averse, and hold on to what they have. So whether you *can* repay is an important consideration, but it's still just a prerequisite for whether you *will* repay.
I don't know about lawyers, but doctors and nurses are taught how to manage people. Many of them are in the industry for the problem-solving aspects of the job, and the interaction with people is a side benefit at best, or else just the cost of doing business and getting access to those problems.
What you describe is an established "symptom" of ASD in women, but perhaps ASD is not an really appropriate classification for those symptoms. I know this is a controversial statement, but it's possible that men and women have different disorders. I mean, if we have to broaden the symptoms of one disorder to include symptoms which happen to be the antithesis of the "same" disorder, then perhaps we're actually looking at a something unique, and we should categorize it as such rather than trying to shoehorn it into an existing classification.
Depends, but yes, reputations have been around as long as society, both formally and informally, and the shift is mostly just from undocumented to documented. Also, the information flowed both ways. Your banker knew everything about you, but so too did you know everything about your banker. Things are far more asymmetric these days, and the push for privacy is really about restoring that balance.
I say this as a begrudging Apple fan, but the only thing they've had tremendous success with has been the iPhone. It's responsible for ~66% of Apple's profits, despite representing, conservatively, 1/10th of their product lineup.
As for why I'm a begrudging Apple fan, in a nutshell. Cons: Reality Distortion Field; Apple Tax; non-modular hardware. Pros/Mitigating Factors: Consumer-friendly, commercially supported POSIX OS; decent quality hardware and warranty; a decaying rate of performance growth in CPUs have made upgradeability less of a concern to me.
T-mobile is $10 cheaper than my unlimited AT&T plan. And while I am technically on a 450 minute plan with AT&T (which I never used up anyway) they are now giving me unlimited talk, so unlimited everything. Plus I got the subsidized prices for my phone instead of that yearly upgrade scam.
Ok, it might be difficult, but it's certainly not impossible or unheard of. They've been found in GitHub repos, for example.
If an malware app was installed without an icon, it could spread prolifically before anybody detected it and the signature could be revoked. Depending on the purpose, it might not need to survive very long anyway.
If anyone actually used AirDrop, that is. I don't know anybody who does, or has it enabled. Most people just send photos via text or email, and share apps via links, if at all. The only time I've personally used it was in a location with poor cell service and no WiFi. I just turned it on in my office, and it didn't find anyone nearby either. YMMV...
Most countries, especially in the five eyes, monitor their communications infrastructure. Outside of that, the ones that don't are still likely being monitored by other countries. Also, communications often transit borders, and once it's out of your network, it's definitely out of your control.
Encryption raises the bar, but unless you are a mathematician who can prove that P != NP (or vice versa) and implement a perfect version of a cryptographic method, you can't really be sure of anything anyway. If it's important enough to conceal a communication, or a collection of communications taken as a whole, then do a key exchange in person with single-use keys, AKA a one-time-pad. Make sure to never, ever use the same key twice, and use an isolated device to perform the encryption/decryption. Keep that device as isolated as possible by, for example, using OCR on printed documents instead of digital media. That will protect against mass surveillance, especially if your encryption algorithm is both unique AND at least as strong as AES, which, again, is hard to prove. (See the section just on attacks on TLS/SSL, and those are the algorithms that secure some of the most valuable corporate data on the planet.)
If you want to communicate in private, then do it in private, in a secure environment. Assume everything else is no different from communicating in public and is being recorded, because it is probably being recorded, and at some point it may very well be public.
You are equating that justice should be proportional to the damage caused, vs intent, and chances for reoccurrence.
Of course it should. As you mention, it should also factor in the variable of deterrent effect on the individual, and likelihood to reoffend, but it should absolutely consider the magnitude of the damage caused. Anything else would be arbitrary and capricious.
Also, money is replaceable, and victims can be made whole, while lives are irreplaceable, at least to the people who lose them.
I'm pretty liberal when it comes to both sentencing and piracy, but I can't agree in this case.
So piracy is not theft, but there was clearly economic harm, in that he offered a service for profit that competed against other, licensed, for-profit services, and clearly drew some business. If someone steals your car, there are economic losses as well. Should car theft not be punished by jail time? If not, should any economic harm? I would argue that it should.
Now, is the sentence just? I would say that two months, with a month for good behavior should be more than enough in most cases. Sometimes people just don't think about consequences, and a taste of consequence is all they need. In this case, however, "He continued to run the website even after he was served a cease and desist order by the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) and after he was initially arrested." [Emphasis mine.] So this wasn't just a case of someone thinking they wouldn't get caught, or that it was no big deal. He *got arrested*, and kept running the site. That's not just trying to skirt the law, that's overtly flaunting the law, and I think 2 years was reasonable.
Phones aren't unibody, in that they always have a front and back. The front may be the screen itself, but it still exists. (There would be no way to get the electronics and battery inside if it were not so.)
The iPhone 4 was probably the easiest iPhone to disassemble, and to compensate for that, Apple used proprietary pentalobe screws to deter the casual user. Still, with a pentalobe screwdriver and a suction cup, it was trivial to open the phone. The connections inside, however, required a degree of dexterity to carefully remove and reattach. Could those connections be made easier? Probably. So Apple could have made the phone easier to service in at least one way, and probably two, and at least one of those obstacles was deliberate.
Compare that to something like the newer iPads, which require the application of heat to soften the glue holding the screen in place. There's nothing user-friendly about that design. There's something to be said for the aesthetics of a sealed case, but it would have been trivial to use screws through the back instead, as with MacBook Pro's, and that would make the devices far more user-serviceable.
Clearly making these devices accessible to the user would be beneficial from a cost standpoint, but it would be beneficial from an environmental standpoint as well. The most environmental choice is almost always to continue using an existing product instead of using the resources to produce a new one, and this is as true for electronics as it is for cars. How many more people would replace their batteries, or cracked screens, for $5 or $10 instead of buying a new phone? Many of my non-tech friends are still using their 3-4 year-old phones, or 10 year-old iPods, and I suspect they will continue using them until the devices die, as much as Apple or Samsung would like them to buy a new one every two years.
Personally, as long as I can get a device open without breaking it, I will always service it myself. That said, I'm getting ready to upgrade my iPhone this week, as I do every two years. And like many tech geeks, I make up for it by rarely buying new clothes.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Not just a personal resume, but a corporate resume. Past experience is a huge barrier to entry in gov't contracting, and so this was (will be?) an easy way to get that. It probably would have gone negative if the possibility was in place.
Anyway, it's all fun and games until the protests are filed and the lawyers get involved.
The government knows damn well that the TSA is security theater -- someone just forgot to tell this particular elected official.
Security theater can be great as a deterrent, but once everybody starts shouting about how it's not real, then its deterrent effect is decreased. So we can either tell people to shut up about it, or eliminate the facade, but increased security isn't an option, for two reasons:
1) Nobody can be vigilant against mostly non-existent threats for hours and days and years on end, except the most paranoid, OCD people, who aren't hireable anyway. That's why bouncers are effective -- people are constantly trying to sneak in, and bouncers know they're going to catch people. Most other security guards know they'll never, ever catch anyone, because nobody ever tries, and their attention suffers as a result. It's not that they don't want to do their job; it's that the reality of their job is incredibly tedious. It becomes about going through the motions most of the time, and maybe making an effort every so often.
2) Real security takes time, and that pisses people off. Maybe not in the immediate wake of a catastrophic security failure, but days or weeks later, it will. Patience will run thin. Moreover, the biggest advantage of flying is convenience -- it's fast. Once that convenience goes away, its popularity will decline.
Honestly, it doesn't matter though. Security has diminishing returns, like anything else, and no target can be fully protected. We can't, even collectively, control all of the variables. And when the risks are infinitesimal to begin with, then taking steps to lower them even more is usually a wasted effort. Better to focus on having procedures in place to handle things when the worst case happens.
Time is generally more difficult to replace than money.
Statistical analysis is a bit different from reading tea leaves. That's not to say they did it properly, but if they didn't, then they're only doing themselves a disservice by ignoring a potentially profitable customer base.
Personally, I would not/do not find it at all surprising that people who are getting shitfaced and posting about it on Facebook are a higher credit risk, because it's a pretty stupid thing to do, for many reasons. Either the individual doesn't know that, or doesn't care, but either way, it's not the sign of a responsible individual.
Death is a pretty good way to get paid, actually. Estates have to pay off creditors before they can make disbursements to heirs.
Your assets don't make you a risk; your (presumed) lack of history makes you a risk. Plenty of very wealthy people have filed for bankruptcy protection, presumably people who could have repaid their debts, at a high cost to their standard of living. If you lost your job, would you deplete your savings to repay creditors, or would you try to hold on to what you have? People tend to be loss averse, and hold on to what they have. So whether you *can* repay is an important consideration, but it's still just a prerequisite for whether you *will* repay.
I don't know about lawyers, but doctors and nurses are taught how to manage people. Many of them are in the industry for the problem-solving aspects of the job, and the interaction with people is a side benefit at best, or else just the cost of doing business and getting access to those problems.
What you describe is an established "symptom" of ASD in women, but perhaps ASD is not an really appropriate classification for those symptoms. I know this is a controversial statement, but it's possible that men and women have different disorders. I mean, if we have to broaden the symptoms of one disorder to include symptoms which happen to be the antithesis of the "same" disorder, then perhaps we're actually looking at a something unique, and we should categorize it as such rather than trying to shoehorn it into an existing classification.
"Numerous" is an inflation. There's one known instance, which is reason to believe there may be others, but no other examples are known publicly.
As for why Avast hasn't been asked -- the government hasn't used their software. It's as simple as that.
From the chair's point of view, everyone looks like an arse.
The UK can compel disclosure of a password, with up to 2 years in jail for simply refusing to comply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
TrueCrypt could provide plausible deniability in theory, but the difference between theory and reality is often smaller in theory than in reality.
Depends, but yes, reputations have been around as long as society, both formally and informally, and the shift is mostly just from undocumented to documented. Also, the information flowed both ways. Your banker knew everything about you, but so too did you know everything about your banker. Things are far more asymmetric these days, and the push for privacy is really about restoring that balance.
Or with whom you use object pronouns for that matter.
One species is said to have enough venom at any one time to kill ninety to one hundred and twenty humans.
Ah, I see they discovered my ex.
I say this as a begrudging Apple fan, but the only thing they've had tremendous success with has been the iPhone. It's responsible for ~66% of Apple's profits, despite representing, conservatively, 1/10th of their product lineup.
As for why I'm a begrudging Apple fan, in a nutshell. Cons: Reality Distortion Field; Apple Tax; non-modular hardware. Pros/Mitigating Factors: Consumer-friendly, commercially supported POSIX OS; decent quality hardware and warranty; a decaying rate of performance growth in CPUs have made upgradeability less of a concern to me.
T-mobile is $10 cheaper than my unlimited AT&T plan. And while I am technically on a 450 minute plan with AT&T (which I never used up anyway) they are now giving me unlimited talk, so unlimited everything. Plus I got the subsidized prices for my phone instead of that yearly upgrade scam.
How about Jeremy Stoppelman?
It wouldn't be difficult to steal a signing key.
Ok, it might be difficult, but it's certainly not impossible or unheard of. They've been found in GitHub repos, for example.
If an malware app was installed without an icon, it could spread prolifically before anybody detected it and the signature could be revoked. Depending on the purpose, it might not need to survive very long anyway.
If anyone actually used AirDrop, that is. I don't know anybody who does, or has it enabled. Most people just send photos via text or email, and share apps via links, if at all. The only time I've personally used it was in a location with poor cell service and no WiFi. I just turned it on in my office, and it didn't find anyone nearby either. YMMV...
It prompts me each time I enable it from the swipe-up menu, at least on iOS 8.1.
Most countries, especially in the five eyes, monitor their communications infrastructure. Outside of that, the ones that don't are still likely being monitored by other countries. Also, communications often transit borders, and once it's out of your network, it's definitely out of your control.
Encryption raises the bar, but unless you are a mathematician who can prove that P != NP (or vice versa) and implement a perfect version of a cryptographic method, you can't really be sure of anything anyway. If it's important enough to conceal a communication, or a collection of communications taken as a whole, then do a key exchange in person with single-use keys, AKA a one-time-pad. Make sure to never, ever use the same key twice, and use an isolated device to perform the encryption/decryption. Keep that device as isolated as possible by, for example, using OCR on printed documents instead of digital media. That will protect against mass surveillance, especially if your encryption algorithm is both unique AND at least as strong as AES, which, again, is hard to prove. (See the section just on attacks on TLS/SSL, and those are the algorithms that secure some of the most valuable corporate data on the planet.)
If you want to communicate in private, then do it in private, in a secure environment. Assume everything else is no different from communicating in public and is being recorded, because it is probably being recorded, and at some point it may very well be public.
Or you could do 5 years as a free man and easily make that much. 55k/yr is well within reach of someone with even a HS education and average IQ.
You are equating that justice should be proportional to the damage caused, vs intent, and chances for reoccurrence.
Of course it should. As you mention, it should also factor in the variable of deterrent effect on the individual, and likelihood to reoffend, but it should absolutely consider the magnitude of the damage caused. Anything else would be arbitrary and capricious.
Also, money is replaceable, and victims can be made whole, while lives are irreplaceable, at least to the people who lose them.
I'm pretty liberal when it comes to both sentencing and piracy, but I can't agree in this case.
So piracy is not theft, but there was clearly economic harm, in that he offered a service for profit that competed against other, licensed, for-profit services, and clearly drew some business. If someone steals your car, there are economic losses as well. Should car theft not be punished by jail time? If not, should any economic harm? I would argue that it should.
Now, is the sentence just? I would say that two months, with a month for good behavior should be more than enough in most cases. Sometimes people just don't think about consequences, and a taste of consequence is all they need. In this case, however, "He continued to run the website even after he was served a cease and desist order by the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) and after he was initially arrested." [Emphasis mine.] So this wasn't just a case of someone thinking they wouldn't get caught, or that it was no big deal. He *got arrested*, and kept running the site. That's not just trying to skirt the law, that's overtly flaunting the law, and I think 2 years was reasonable.
Phones aren't unibody, in that they always have a front and back. The front may be the screen itself, but it still exists. (There would be no way to get the electronics and battery inside if it were not so.)
The iPhone 4 was probably the easiest iPhone to disassemble, and to compensate for that, Apple used proprietary pentalobe screws to deter the casual user. Still, with a pentalobe screwdriver and a suction cup, it was trivial to open the phone. The connections inside, however, required a degree of dexterity to carefully remove and reattach. Could those connections be made easier? Probably. So Apple could have made the phone easier to service in at least one way, and probably two, and at least one of those obstacles was deliberate.
Compare that to something like the newer iPads, which require the application of heat to soften the glue holding the screen in place. There's nothing user-friendly about that design. There's something to be said for the aesthetics of a sealed case, but it would have been trivial to use screws through the back instead, as with MacBook Pro's, and that would make the devices far more user-serviceable.
Clearly making these devices accessible to the user would be beneficial from a cost standpoint, but it would be beneficial from an environmental standpoint as well. The most environmental choice is almost always to continue using an existing product instead of using the resources to produce a new one, and this is as true for electronics as it is for cars. How many more people would replace their batteries, or cracked screens, for $5 or $10 instead of buying a new phone? Many of my non-tech friends are still using their 3-4 year-old phones, or 10 year-old iPods, and I suspect they will continue using them until the devices die, as much as Apple or Samsung would like them to buy a new one every two years.
Personally, as long as I can get a device open without breaking it, I will always service it myself. That said, I'm getting ready to upgrade my iPhone this week, as I do every two years. And like many tech geeks, I make up for it by rarely buying new clothes. ;)
Laser-resistant windshields!!!