Does that mean that the FBI was running the site while it still hosted child porn?
It appears so. What else could explain why we see entries on pastebin-like sites from a child porn site admin who discovered the malware and only then deleted his content?
How long will it be before the FBI goes publicly on the attack?
Freedom Hosting was, from what I've been reading over the last couple of days, not only taken over by the FBI and used to inject this code but it also probably hosted half of all child porn *.onion sites extant.
Demonizing the pervs seems like a good way to distract people from the fact that a state entity is now actively running malware that attacks everybody. I'm surprised it hasn't started already.
...your so-called "justice" system condoned the murder of a 17 year old kid because some gun-toting putz started a fight and ended up losing.
No. Just NO.
I'm retired and have time on my hands. I'm also a long-time free-speech and gun rights advocate, giving money, time, and voice to both issues.
I sat at my computer and watched the entire trial as it was streamed. All of it. If you haven't done the same and have only listened to the mass media, you have no idea what happened that night. If you watched the trial, you'll have a reasonable theory. If you've looked into Trayvon's drug and exercise habits and his texts (that were not allowed into evidence), you'll have great confidence in that theory.
George Zimmerman was not just "not guilty", he was innocent. He wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed and perhaps other people would have acted differently with a different outcome but all of his actions leading up to the shooting were reasonable.
The jury absolutely, positively reached the right decision.
If you think otherwise, willful ignorance is in play.
Good lord, it's not that difficult! Use The Amnesiac Incognito Live System (TAILS), a live CD from: https://tails.boum.org/. When Iceweasel (the browser in TAILS) fires up, turn off Javascript and cookies. Then surf over TOR without worries from this exploit.
If you need Javascript and cookies, you can still be secure with only a bit more work.
Whonix, a new profile, and a VPN are overkill. The folks (not here) saying you need to run it all inside a VM have simply gone round the bend.
To where? Any serious suggestions for a guy like me who would like free speech, fast internet, the government to keep out of my bedroom, and who loves to shoot?
No guns or "too difficult to bother" guns for resident aliens makes any suggestion invalid.
I can't count the number of threats of law suits a $400 debt got me.
Something similar happened to me and it bugged the heck out of me until I finally had a flash of insight. The collection agency was always willing to threaten me with "We have a recording of our last conversation. Would you like me to play it back for you?"
One day they threatened to sue. I replied "You promise?" The collection troll didn't understand. "If you sue me, then we get to go in front of a judge who will force you to shut up long enough for me to explain why I don't owe any money. I want you to sue me."
"Well, we will."
"OK. Just remember, you promised."
They called me a couple of times after that. I reminded them of the fact that they had promised to sue me and I was waiting to be served papers to appear in court. I also reminded them that they had a recording of them promising to sue me.
They hung up on me a couple of times and then I never heard from them or anyone else about it again.
Does anyone have ideas about defining the parameters of 'informed consent' where we inform of risks without bringing about paranoia?
Why is "bringing about paranoia" a problem? Where security is concerned, I generally consider paranoia to be a good default reaction to any situation until I understand it well enough to relax.
Explain the situation well and allow the parents and others to be as paranoid as they consider prudent. Don't try to manipulate them into being more or less paranoid just because you or the system think they should adopt a different mindset. You provide facts then it's their choice to make.
If, OTOH, you're excessively concerned about and wish to avoid creating paranoia you'll hamstring your efforts to be intellectually honest and technically accurate when you "define the parameters of informed consent."
The vast majority of industry trade shows look quite professional. A small minority of industries that attract people with developmental problems (..., guns, and...) don't.
You have no idea what you're talking about. There are two BIG industry shows for guns in the U.S. each year, the SHOT show and the NRA Annual Meeting. I didn't get to SHOT this year but I did get to the NRA Annual Meeting.
There were hundreds of exhibitors. I saw two clear examples of "booth babes". In both cases, they were over-the-top with skimpy dress, signing posters, and posing for pics BUT if you took the time to talk to them you found out they actually knew the product lines. Sometimes, they knew the products better than the male full-time reps who were in the majority.
I talked to a female rep for an optics company who was super-hot and dressed on the tight and sexy side of what would be considered normal office apparel. However, I assumed that she'd either know the products or hand me off to someone who did so I broke out with technical questions about lens specs and marketing questions about model numbers and the current catalog. She knew every answer, straight up, no bs. She didn't blink at the jargon. She didn't flutter her eyelashes. She was just competent, period.
The same was true for every exhibitor. I found both male and female reps who had varying (sometimes insufficient) levels of competence but there wasn't a single ignorant booth babe in attendance whose only job was to be living eye candy.
Have you ever actually been to a big gun industry gathering or was this just a chance to take a cheap shot at people who like guns?
The point of posting the link was to show that there is technology that works for some definition of "works".
It's not computerized and activated by your DNA. It doesn't read fingerprints. So if that's required for your definition, then it only "comes close."
If your definition of "works" is "prevents unauthorized users in almost all cases", then it works.
The point of the link is to educate know-nothings that this is not a new idea, let them know that there is reliable technology that works, then let them decide if that's good enough to include in this conversation.
Thank you for making clear that you didn't read the link or else you wouldn't ask such a stupid question and would have, instead, commented with your thoughts on just how close this technology is to your definition of "works".
YOUR point was obviously to be an asshole; thank you for such clear communication.
The public has decided that bombs kill way too many people and the law (in the United States, at least), severely punishes people who, successfully or otherwise, blow up a bomb. Like all other hazardous items (with the curious exception of guns), individuals have to be licensed to handle bombs and there is probably a federal registry that lists all of them and where they store their bomb-building supplies.
Wrong on all counts. This is what happened the last time a group of my buddies got together for a little informal target practice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTAeNxH-hIk
That video shows good, clean fun and an exercise of basic human rights. Anyone who disagrees is wrong but may, of course, have some good points to make. Feel free.
Perfectly willing to check out Usenet and use it regularly. However, I know of no groups that regularly publish binaries of old porn mags. Any suggestions?
Yes, granted, the internet is for porn. It does a great job.
This submission, though, comes from Japan where variations of porn magazines, often of very high quality, are still produced.
That reminded me that I miss the porn magazines of my youth, especially the ones that pretended to be legit by including articles. Some did a good job of showing great porn (or at least nude art that was a bit more on the raunchy side) while also printing fun, informative prose.
Playboy could be quite literate but wasn't porn-y enough.
I'm thinking more like Puritan. I really miss Puritan.
If it were in the right content cycle, Zoom was also good. That magazine didn't know what it wanted to be. Some years it was a photo enthusiast magazine that used lots of racy content to illustrate camera and lens tests. Other years it was a softcore porn mag where they told you what cameras they used to shoot the stuff and occasionally printed new product news releases from photo equipment manufacturers. Over years-long cycles, the pendulum would swing back and forth. I really miss certain iterations of Zoom, generally the French editions.
Are any of my fellow oldsters willing to share any fond memories? Or has printed porn become entirely superfluous?
I pick up a call and suddenly I'm back in the 1960's.
Were you alive and using a phone in the 1960s? I doubt it. Back then, connections were all analog and the sound quality was stellar. Deregulation, fragmentation, cost-cutting, the advent of digital, the lowered expectations of cell phone users have allowed ALL phone transmission quality to decline. But if you're old enough to remember, you know that those rotary-dial phones with the 30-foot handset cords (so you could be mildly mobile within your home) and the system that backed them up produced high-quality sound relative to the crap we put up with today.
Hell, I'm still pissed that I had to give up my outdated StarTac when the cell technology changed. Cell call sound quality was acceptable before that. Now it's all crap, all the time.
In 1976, my father bought my first revolver for me at a combined liquor and gun store that I'm sure also sold tobacco products. It was located in a major shopping mall (Wonderland, iirc) in San Antonio, Texas. I mean, right out there where today you find Apple stores and Payless shoe stores, a combination liquor/gun store! It was great!
...you could stop trying to be the arbiter of what is good and worthy and just indulge in the media you do enjoy.
I can take that attitude towards media but the GP has a point. It's spread past mere "media".
Offhand example - Many makers of firearms and accessories have taken up the whole "zombie marketing" angle. One manufacturer took a normal-priced line of cartridges, changed the packaging to something featuring drippy fonts and garish green and red colors, re-named the line "ZombieMax", and seriously jacked up the price. The stuff immediately started flying off the shelves. (And this was way before Newtown.)
The power of marketing gimmicks is sometimes a serious blow to my faith in the reasoning skills of my fellow humans.
This starts from a young age, I would say, for the first X years of school, you don't have to study for anything and then suddenly they make it so you can't succeed anymore without studying. Well, what do you know, the one damn thing I don't know how to do is to study.
however, hits home. Hard.
I never cracked a book when I was a kid. I listened in class, did what homework was required in a mad dash at the last minute, and graduated as valedictorian of my high school class.
Then I went off on a full-ride scholarship to a prestigous university where professors actually expected me to read stuff they didn't touch on in class and even (as I found out after I failed my first test) to seek out and read the books they had written on the same subjects, completely without any official guide.
Seriously, my college provided no faculty advisor for new students. There was a history professor who was theoretically assigned to help. I was required, for example, to get his OK on my class selections. When I took him the form, he looked at it with a puzzled expression, asked me if I knew how to spell his name, then instructed me to sign his name to it and not bother him again. That was the last we spoke.
My student mentor was tasked with helping me adjust socially. Well, no one has ever succeeded in helping me adjust socially to anything. He got lost pretty damn quick.
With no clue, no help, and no life preserver in a sea of sink or swim, I sank. Fast. I couldn't adjust to the complete change in educational processes quickly enough and I lasted just one semester.
Dropping out was the second biggest mistake of my life and even now, as an old man, there isn't a week that goes by that I don't regret it.
Back on-topic with something relative to the OP - From experience, I'd say that academic failure can come from unexpected sources. When students fail, it's not because they are incapable of learning. Clearly, they are. It's just that the way they've learned to process new knowledge and they way it's being presented are not in sync. Right now it may seem that the main problem is short attention spans but, frankly, I think there have always been disconnects between methods of teaching and techniques of learning, some of those disconnects large enough to completely sink the efforts of the folks on both sides of the podium.
Holder already stated that using a drone, on a common American Citizen, siting in a Starbucks, would be an unnecessary use of force.
Unfortunately, an unnecessary use of force in the opinion of one AG under one set of circumstances may be considered, under other circumstances, by an FBI Special Agent in charge of an ongoing situation (and with concurrence up the chain of command) to be perfectly reasonable. I have no doubt that if the technology had been available at the time, the bodies of Randy Weaver and everyone with him would have never been found; there would have only been a giant, smoking crater where the drones landed.
Yes, Paul was putting on a show. That doesn't change the fact that he was seeking a no-weasel-clause direct statement from the AG that there exists no authority to use drones on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. He almost got that..but not quite. As drones become cheaper and are deployed at lower and lower levels of government (counties have them now), I have no doubt that someday in the near future some County Sheriff will lose patience with some lone nutbag in an isolated cabin armed with a rifle he knows how to use. At that point, someone will be called on to kludge together some way to attach a couple of gallons of gas and some sort of igniter to a cheap surveillance drone that will then be crashed into the roof of said isolated cabin. Hell, we've already seen the aerial bombardment of holed-up folks using helicopters in the middle of a city with predictably disastrous results.
A drone strike on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is, unfortunately, not a big stretch from what we've seen in the past. When it happens it will mark the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the use of force.
Slashdot Mirror
And the NRA. Don't neglect America's longest-standing civil rights organization.
It appears so. What else could explain why we see entries on pastebin-like sites from a child porn site admin who discovered the malware and only then deleted his content?
How long will it be before the FBI goes publicly on the attack?
Freedom Hosting was, from what I've been reading over the last couple of days, not only taken over by the FBI and used to inject this code but it also probably hosted half of all child porn *.onion sites extant.
Demonizing the pervs seems like a good way to distract people from the fact that a state entity is now actively running malware that attacks everybody. I'm surprised it hasn't started already.
No. Just NO.
I'm retired and have time on my hands. I'm also a long-time free-speech and gun rights advocate, giving money, time, and voice to both issues.
I sat at my computer and watched the entire trial as it was streamed. All of it. If you haven't done the same and have only listened to the mass media, you have no idea what happened that night. If you watched the trial, you'll have a reasonable theory. If you've looked into Trayvon's drug and exercise habits and his texts (that were not allowed into evidence), you'll have great confidence in that theory.
George Zimmerman was not just "not guilty", he was innocent. He wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed and perhaps other people would have acted differently with a different outcome but all of his actions leading up to the shooting were reasonable.
The jury absolutely, positively reached the right decision.
If you think otherwise, willful ignorance is in play.
Shit happens all the time. See: http://www.privacylover.com/child-porn/.
Good lord, it's not that difficult! Use The Amnesiac Incognito Live System (TAILS), a live CD from: https://tails.boum.org/. When Iceweasel (the browser in TAILS) fires up, turn off Javascript and cookies. Then surf over TOR without worries from this exploit.
If you need Javascript and cookies, you can still be secure with only a bit more work.
Whonix, a new profile, and a VPN are overkill. The folks (not here) saying you need to run it all inside a VM have simply gone round the bend.
To where? Any serious suggestions for a guy like me who would like free speech, fast internet, the government to keep out of my bedroom, and who loves to shoot?
No guns or "too difficult to bother" guns for resident aliens makes any suggestion invalid.
I'd love to know where I could go.
Something similar happened to me and it bugged the heck out of me until I finally had a flash of insight. The collection agency was always willing to threaten me with "We have a recording of our last conversation. Would you like me to play it back for you?"
One day they threatened to sue. I replied "You promise?" The collection troll didn't understand. "If you sue me, then we get to go in front of a judge who will force you to shut up long enough for me to explain why I don't owe any money. I want you to sue me."
"Well, we will."
"OK. Just remember, you promised."
They called me a couple of times after that. I reminded them of the fact that they had promised to sue me and I was waiting to be served papers to appear in court. I also reminded them that they had a recording of them promising to sue me.
They hung up on me a couple of times and then I never heard from them or anyone else about it again.
The submitter explicitly asks that suggestions be limited to works of 200 pages or less, so you suggest something that's ~400 pages long.
Yeah, that'll work.
Where cp is the subject, not originally. I'm not going to bother to update an admittedly imperfect summary for this discussion; I'll just post a link: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=27362943&sid=1178395
Why is "bringing about paranoia" a problem? Where security is concerned, I generally consider paranoia to be a good default reaction to any situation until I understand it well enough to relax.
Explain the situation well and allow the parents and others to be as paranoid as they consider prudent. Don't try to manipulate them into being more or less paranoid just because you or the system think they should adopt a different mindset. You provide facts then it's their choice to make.
If, OTOH, you're excessively concerned about and wish to avoid creating paranoia you'll hamstring your efforts to be intellectually honest and technically accurate when you "define the parameters of informed consent."
You have no idea what you're talking about. There are two BIG industry shows for guns in the U.S. each year, the SHOT show and the NRA Annual Meeting. I didn't get to SHOT this year but I did get to the NRA Annual Meeting.
There were hundreds of exhibitors. I saw two clear examples of "booth babes". In both cases, they were over-the-top with skimpy dress, signing posters, and posing for pics BUT if you took the time to talk to them you found out they actually knew the product lines. Sometimes, they knew the products better than the male full-time reps who were in the majority.
I talked to a female rep for an optics company who was super-hot and dressed on the tight and sexy side of what would be considered normal office apparel. However, I assumed that she'd either know the products or hand me off to someone who did so I broke out with technical questions about lens specs and marketing questions about model numbers and the current catalog. She knew every answer, straight up, no bs. She didn't blink at the jargon. She didn't flutter her eyelashes. She was just competent, period.
The same was true for every exhibitor. I found both male and female reps who had varying (sometimes insufficient) levels of competence but there wasn't a single ignorant booth babe in attendance whose only job was to be living eye candy.
Have you ever actually been to a big gun industry gathering or was this just a chance to take a cheap shot at people who like guns?
"Developmental problems", my ass.
A clean system on your own system is available for free by dropping in this and re-booting. It's what I use to introduce people to TOR.
Insightful.
Why do I feed trolls?
The point of posting the link was to show that there is technology that works for some definition of "works".
It's not computerized and activated by your DNA. It doesn't read fingerprints. So if that's required for your definition, then it only "comes close."
If your definition of "works" is "prevents unauthorized users in almost all cases", then it works.
The point of the link is to educate know-nothings that this is not a new idea, let them know that there is reliable technology that works, then let them decide if that's good enough to include in this conversation.
Thank you for making clear that you didn't read the link or else you wouldn't ask such a stupid question and would have, instead, commented with your thoughts on just how close this technology is to your definition of "works".
YOUR point was obviously to be an asshole; thank you for such clear communication.
Comes close: http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html
Wrong on all counts. This is what happened the last time a group of my buddies got together for a little informal target practice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTAeNxH-hIk
That video shows good, clean fun and an exercise of basic human rights. Anyone who disagrees is wrong but may, of course, have some good points to make. Feel free.
If so, it's a total non-starter with me.
Perfectly willing to check out Usenet and use it regularly. However, I know of no groups that regularly publish binaries of old porn mags. Any suggestions?
Yes, granted, the internet is for porn. It does a great job.
This submission, though, comes from Japan where variations of porn magazines, often of very high quality, are still produced.
That reminded me that I miss the porn magazines of my youth, especially the ones that pretended to be legit by including articles. Some did a good job of showing great porn (or at least nude art that was a bit more on the raunchy side) while also printing fun, informative prose.
Playboy could be quite literate but wasn't porn-y enough.
I'm thinking more like Puritan. I really miss Puritan.
If it were in the right content cycle, Zoom was also good. That magazine didn't know what it wanted to be. Some years it was a photo enthusiast magazine that used lots of racy content to illustrate camera and lens tests. Other years it was a softcore porn mag where they told you what cameras they used to shoot the stuff and occasionally printed new product news releases from photo equipment manufacturers. Over years-long cycles, the pendulum would swing back and forth. I really miss certain iterations of Zoom, generally the French editions.
Are any of my fellow oldsters willing to share any fond memories? Or has printed porn become entirely superfluous?
Were you alive and using a phone in the 1960s? I doubt it. Back then, connections were all analog and the sound quality was stellar. Deregulation, fragmentation, cost-cutting, the advent of digital, the lowered expectations of cell phone users have allowed ALL phone transmission quality to decline. But if you're old enough to remember, you know that those rotary-dial phones with the 30-foot handset cords (so you could be mildly mobile within your home) and the system that backed them up produced high-quality sound relative to the crap we put up with today.
Hell, I'm still pissed that I had to give up my outdated StarTac when the cell technology changed. Cell call sound quality was acceptable before that. Now it's all crap, all the time.
In 1976, my father bought my first revolver for me at a combined liquor and gun store that I'm sure also sold tobacco products. It was located in a major shopping mall (Wonderland, iirc) in San Antonio, Texas. I mean, right out there where today you find Apple stores and Payless shoe stores, a combination liquor/gun store! It was great!
Kids today don't appreciate what they've lost.
I can take that attitude towards media but the GP has a point. It's spread past mere "media".
Offhand example - Many makers of firearms and accessories have taken up the whole "zombie marketing" angle. One manufacturer took a normal-priced line of cartridges, changed the packaging to something featuring drippy fonts and garish green and red colors, re-named the line "ZombieMax", and seriously jacked up the price. The stuff immediately started flying off the shelves. (And this was way before Newtown.)
The power of marketing gimmicks is sometimes a serious blow to my faith in the reasoning skills of my fellow humans.
I consider much of your post drivel. This,
however, hits home. Hard.
I never cracked a book when I was a kid. I listened in class, did what homework was required in a mad dash at the last minute, and graduated as valedictorian of my high school class.
Then I went off on a full-ride scholarship to a prestigous university where professors actually expected me to read stuff they didn't touch on in class and even (as I found out after I failed my first test) to seek out and read the books they had written on the same subjects, completely without any official guide.
Seriously, my college provided no faculty advisor for new students. There was a history professor who was theoretically assigned to help. I was required, for example, to get his OK on my class selections. When I took him the form, he looked at it with a puzzled expression, asked me if I knew how to spell his name, then instructed me to sign his name to it and not bother him again. That was the last we spoke.
My student mentor was tasked with helping me adjust socially. Well, no one has ever succeeded in helping me adjust socially to anything. He got lost pretty damn quick.
With no clue, no help, and no life preserver in a sea of sink or swim, I sank. Fast. I couldn't adjust to the complete change in educational processes quickly enough and I lasted just one semester.
Dropping out was the second biggest mistake of my life and even now, as an old man, there isn't a week that goes by that I don't regret it.
Back on-topic with something relative to the OP - From experience, I'd say that academic failure can come from unexpected sources. When students fail, it's not because they are incapable of learning. Clearly, they are. It's just that the way they've learned to process new knowledge and they way it's being presented are not in sync. Right now it may seem that the main problem is short attention spans but, frankly, I think there have always been disconnects between methods of teaching and techniques of learning, some of those disconnects large enough to completely sink the efforts of the folks on both sides of the podium.
Unfortunately, an unnecessary use of force in the opinion of one AG under one set of circumstances may be considered, under other circumstances, by an FBI Special Agent in charge of an ongoing situation (and with concurrence up the chain of command) to be perfectly reasonable. I have no doubt that if the technology had been available at the time, the bodies of Randy Weaver and everyone with him would have never been found; there would have only been a giant, smoking crater where the drones landed.
Yes, Paul was putting on a show. That doesn't change the fact that he was seeking a no-weasel-clause direct statement from the AG that there exists no authority to use drones on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. He almost got that..but not quite. As drones become cheaper and are deployed at lower and lower levels of government (counties have them now), I have no doubt that someday in the near future some County Sheriff will lose patience with some lone nutbag in an isolated cabin armed with a rifle he knows how to use. At that point, someone will be called on to kludge together some way to attach a couple of gallons of gas and some sort of igniter to a cheap surveillance drone that will then be crashed into the roof of said isolated cabin. Hell, we've already seen the aerial bombardment of holed-up folks using helicopters in the middle of a city with predictably disastrous results.
A drone strike on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is, unfortunately, not a big stretch from what we've seen in the past. When it happens it will mark the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the use of force.