Encryption either works or it does not work. There is no middle ground; weakening it is the same as eliminating it's use entirely.
Do they really think that criminals and terrorists aren't going to use their own, non-compromised encryption or cipher techniques, to do their 'business' regardless? Maybe even mislead government officials by planting bullshit on the 'compromised' channels? I'm no criminal or terrorist and I can think of these things, what makes them think that THEY won't think of them and more?
The only possible path to what they want (total and complete surveillance into ALL non-government, non-military communications) is to ban non-government, non-military use of any and all encryption technologies. HOWEVER: Doing so will, in essence, destroy the Internet. No commerce or transfer of funds will be able to take place without being done 'in the clear', where anyone and everyone with the technical chops to do so can tap into it; you'd be nuts to put any banking or personal information of any kind over the Internet if that's the way it worked.
If, here in the U.S., they managed to force legislation requiring so-called 'backdoors' into all encryption, I, for one, would have to go back to getting paper bills in the mail, and mailing paper checks. I'm already back to paying cash for everything I can, because I've reached the point where I'm no longer trusting EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) for day-to-day expenses (too much hacking going on); destroying encryption or banning it will just make EFT hacking problems that much worse.
Really, seriously, honestly: Why are all these politicians so gods-be-damned retarded when it comes to this subject? Do they not have technical experts that they trust advising them, telling them that what they want is not possible without destroying the value of encryption entirely? Do they not understand the disaster they'd be bringing down on their own heads? Or do they just not care, so long as they can peer into anyone and everyone's private business, regardless of being criminal/terrorist or being innocent of everything?
If this thumb drive is connected to computers on an air-gapped network, a second malware is planted on these devices.
If you work at a company that has an air-gapped private network for security reasons and you actually do this, then you are a moron and deserve to be fired. I've worked for a defense contractor. We were all trained to not do stupid things like this; basic OPSEC.
How effective is having a foreign government, potentially hostile to your country, sign an NDA, so far as preventing them from using knowledge of that source code to mount attacks targeting your specific products?
Linux is Linus Torvalds' lifes' work.
How many of you can say you have anything that is your lifes' work, and not just a job? Seems like an eviable thing to me, to have a "lifes' work".
I agree with you, and add this: Anyone who thinks that it's only the Chinese government that does things like this is either incredibly gullible, or just isn't paying attention. Then there's corporations and their paid shills. Just a couple of the myriad reasons I shun all social media and recommend that everyone else do the same.
So you want them taking the data directly from computers you own instead of you voluntarily, manually submitting it to them? That's pretty much how it would happen.
Your idea has merit. But it would have to be a subscription-only service in order to pay for itself, because there would be no selling of user data to advertisers so they could target ads at them, or selling it to the government so they can profile you and spy on what you're doing. People would whine and cry about having to pay, and they'd just stay over on Facebook, because they don't understand what it is they're giving away to Facebook (their lives, essentially). Your service would respect the privacy of the tiny percentage of the population that actually understands that privacy is precious and should be protected.
*Shrug* I dunno, start small and see if it actually goes anywhere. I'd love to be proven wrong in this case.
Sure, but you're not seeing my point: he's being disingenuous, pretending to be some sort of humanitarian or something, when it is and always has been about THE MONEY. I'd actually have a modicum of respect for Zuckerberg if he'd just come right out and say it instead of bullshitting everyone.
You can do pretty much all of those things with.pdf files, though. Why can't they then either use.pdf files, or make e-textbooks work like.pdf files? Doesn't sound hard to me.
Facebook has one mission and it's the same mission it's always had since Zuckerberg came up with the thing in the first place: make as much money as possible off of your users. This is done by collecting data on them and selling that to advertisers, and (likely) providing that information to government agencies, for which I'll bet they also receive a pretty penny. All this 'bringing the world closer together' more or less translates to 'Let's finish gathering up all the two-legged human sheep of the world and put them in one corral, so it's that much easier to collect data from them that we can sell'. Zuckerberg can and should bugger the hell off.
Give me one good reason why you or anyone else needs a gods-be-damned internet connected toaster, blender, refrigerator, dishwasher, clothes washer, or clothes dryer? Rhetorical question, NOBODY does, and NOBODY should waste their money on stupid things like that.
WAAAH, they're being mean to me again, WAAAH! I'm going to SUE you, you big meanies, WAAH, WAAAH, WAAAAAAHHH!!!!
That's about how this reads. Someone doesn't have a sense of humor, apparently -- or just needs their diaper changed. Either way I hope some judge tells this idiot to STFU and GTFO.
I've always thought that the perfect use for e-books is textbooks, especially since they can be yanked back and/or edited at will; whereas I hate them for that ability and how it's been sometimes abused when it comes to purchased literature (I prefer printed paper books, TYVM) textbooks are often updated, and textbooks are very often only good to the student for one semester, but can cost hundreds of dollars. An e-book version could eliminate all these problems, as well as the massive weight of carrying around a bunch of textbooks; students would just need a laptop (which they'd have anyway) or a tablet computer, or even just an e-book reader. E-book readers are inexpensive, and they could even be rented to students by the college bookstore. The e-book textbooks themselves could also be rented; you'd just pay for access for a given timespan. College bookstores would only really have to keep consumable materials in-stock, and could also be smaller. Win-win for everyone.
There will always be a market for basic, 'dumb' appliances and other things, because not everybody is rich, but everybody needs to live. So you don't get the shiniest new things; so what? A toaster needs to just be good at being a TOASTER. Or a coffee maker. Or a refrigerator. Or a dishwasher, clothes washer, clothes dryer, and so on. There will ALWAYS be companies that make basic, reliable things like that. Don't believe all this bullshit hype that 'everything is going to be a computer'. Not necessary. As remarkable as it may sound, common sense manages to survive.
If Sweden is serious about this, then that means that they expect nothing but zero-emission vehicles on their roads by 2045. Sounds to me like Musk should talk to them about building a Tesla Motors factory there, and maybe another Gigafactory to make batteries, he'd make a killing.
Like me, you're probably someone who enjoys exercise and doesn't need a carrot on the end of a stick to persuade you to do it at all in the first place, but remember that you and I are outliers, the average person would rather do anything other than exercise, up to and including die young of horrible diseases, because it's 'unpleasant'. I, too, think there's a lot of 'goofy woo-woo' stuff involved with yoga, that mainly makes it take twice as long as it needs to really take to do, but it seems to me that if you can get the average, exercise-hating person to buy into that 'goofy woo-woo pseudo-spiritual' stuff that is integrated into yoga, then it might just distract them (and/or fool them) enough that they won't notice that they're doing actual work, and keep doing it. Really, honestly, seriously, if I could find a way to get 100% of people to exercise willingly and regularly, I'd be a multi-billonaire from the idea.
As someone else already said: just have the cashier enter the code. Really, it's not that hard. Even at self-checkout stations, you can pick from a picture menu, or if you're clever you can remember the code; bananas are '4011', for instance. Then they'll not only save on paper and adhesive but on expensive laser printing systems.
I really don't want to get into a big debate on the subject of whether humans are omnivores or herbivores, but you might want to check whether that statement is really as accurate as it could be; while humans can 'survive' on a vegetarian diet, I'd argue against the idea that they can 'thrive' or have 'optimal health' on a vegetarian diet alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Encryption either works or it does not work. There is no middle ground; weakening it is the same as eliminating it's use entirely.
Do they really think that criminals and terrorists aren't going to use their own, non-compromised encryption or cipher techniques, to do their 'business' regardless? Maybe even mislead government officials by planting bullshit on the 'compromised' channels? I'm no criminal or terrorist and I can think of these things, what makes them think that THEY won't think of them and more?
The only possible path to what they want (total and complete surveillance into ALL non-government, non-military communications) is to ban non-government, non-military use of any and all encryption technologies. HOWEVER: Doing so will, in essence, destroy the Internet. No commerce or transfer of funds will be able to take place without being done 'in the clear', where anyone and everyone with the technical chops to do so can tap into it; you'd be nuts to put any banking or personal information of any kind over the Internet if that's the way it worked.
If, here in the U.S., they managed to force legislation requiring so-called 'backdoors' into all encryption, I, for one, would have to go back to getting paper bills in the mail, and mailing paper checks. I'm already back to paying cash for everything I can, because I've reached the point where I'm no longer trusting EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) for day-to-day expenses (too much hacking going on); destroying encryption or banning it will just make EFT hacking problems that much worse.
Really, seriously, honestly: Why are all these politicians so gods-be-damned retarded when it comes to this subject? Do they not have technical experts that they trust advising them, telling them that what they want is not possible without destroying the value of encryption entirely? Do they not understand the disaster they'd be bringing down on their own heads? Or do they just not care, so long as they can peer into anyone and everyone's private business, regardless of being criminal/terrorist or being innocent of everything?
Hear, hear!
If this thumb drive is connected to computers on an air-gapped network, a second malware is planted on these devices.
If you work at a company that has an air-gapped private network for security reasons and you actually do this, then you are a moron and deserve to be fired. I've worked for a defense contractor. We were all trained to not do stupid things like this; basic OPSEC.
How effective is having a foreign government, potentially hostile to your country, sign an NDA, so far as preventing them from using knowledge of that source code to mount attacks targeting your specific products?
Linux is Linus Torvalds' lifes' work.
How many of you can say you have anything that is your lifes' work, and not just a job? Seems like an eviable thing to me, to have a "lifes' work".
..and just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me. xD
I reserve the Basic Human Right to complain. xD
I agree with you, and add this: Anyone who thinks that it's only the Chinese government that does things like this is either incredibly gullible, or just isn't paying attention. Then there's corporations and their paid shills. Just a couple of the myriad reasons I shun all social media and recommend that everyone else do the same.
So you want them taking the data directly from computers you own instead of you voluntarily, manually submitting it to them? That's pretty much how it would happen.
Your idea has merit. But it would have to be a subscription-only service in order to pay for itself, because there would be no selling of user data to advertisers so they could target ads at them, or selling it to the government so they can profile you and spy on what you're doing. People would whine and cry about having to pay, and they'd just stay over on Facebook, because they don't understand what it is they're giving away to Facebook (their lives, essentially). Your service would respect the privacy of the tiny percentage of the population that actually understands that privacy is precious and should be protected.
*Shrug* I dunno, start small and see if it actually goes anywhere. I'd love to be proven wrong in this case.
Sure, but you're not seeing my point: he's being disingenuous, pretending to be some sort of humanitarian or something, when it is and always has been about THE MONEY. I'd actually have a modicum of respect for Zuckerberg if he'd just come right out and say it instead of bullshitting everyone.
I feel insulted.
You can do pretty much all of those things with .pdf files, though. Why can't they then either use .pdf files, or make e-textbooks work like .pdf files? Doesn't sound hard to me.
Facebook has one mission and it's the same mission it's always had since Zuckerberg came up with the thing in the first place: make as much money as possible off of your users. This is done by collecting data on them and selling that to advertisers, and (likely) providing that information to government agencies, for which I'll bet they also receive a pretty penny. All this 'bringing the world closer together' more or less translates to 'Let's finish gathering up all the two-legged human sheep of the world and put them in one corral, so it's that much easier to collect data from them that we can sell'. Zuckerberg can and should bugger the hell off.
Amplifying your sarcasm.
Give me one good reason why you or anyone else needs a gods-be-damned internet connected toaster, blender, refrigerator, dishwasher, clothes washer, or clothes dryer? Rhetorical question, NOBODY does, and NOBODY should waste their money on stupid things like that.
WAAAH, they're being mean to me again, WAAAH! I'm going to SUE you, you big meanies, WAAH, WAAAH, WAAAAAAHHH!!!!
That's about how this reads. Someone doesn't have a sense of humor, apparently -- or just needs their diaper changed. Either way I hope some judge tells this idiot to STFU and GTFO.
I've always thought that the perfect use for e-books is textbooks, especially since they can be yanked back and/or edited at will; whereas I hate them for that ability and how it's been sometimes abused when it comes to purchased literature (I prefer printed paper books, TYVM) textbooks are often updated, and textbooks are very often only good to the student for one semester, but can cost hundreds of dollars. An e-book version could eliminate all these problems, as well as the massive weight of carrying around a bunch of textbooks; students would just need a laptop (which they'd have anyway) or a tablet computer, or even just an e-book reader. E-book readers are inexpensive, and they could even be rented to students by the college bookstore. The e-book textbooks themselves could also be rented; you'd just pay for access for a given timespan. College bookstores would only really have to keep consumable materials in-stock, and could also be smaller. Win-win for everyone.
I don't. :-) Not sure how much privacy that preserves, though, they can still log every single IP address you connect to.
There will always be a market for basic, 'dumb' appliances and other things, because not everybody is rich, but everybody needs to live. So you don't get the shiniest new things; so what? A toaster needs to just be good at being a TOASTER. Or a coffee maker. Or a refrigerator. Or a dishwasher, clothes washer, clothes dryer, and so on. There will ALWAYS be companies that make basic, reliable things like that. Don't believe all this bullshit hype that 'everything is going to be a computer'. Not necessary. As remarkable as it may sound, common sense manages to survive.
How about we just don't buy them at all, and let the whole 'IoT' fad die out, like Pogs and Spinners?
If Sweden is serious about this, then that means that they expect nothing but zero-emission vehicles on their roads by 2045. Sounds to me like Musk should talk to them about building a Tesla Motors factory there, and maybe another Gigafactory to make batteries, he'd make a killing.
Like me, you're probably someone who enjoys exercise and doesn't need a carrot on the end of a stick to persuade you to do it at all in the first place, but remember that you and I are outliers, the average person would rather do anything other than exercise, up to and including die young of horrible diseases, because it's 'unpleasant'. I, too, think there's a lot of 'goofy woo-woo' stuff involved with yoga, that mainly makes it take twice as long as it needs to really take to do, but it seems to me that if you can get the average, exercise-hating person to buy into that 'goofy woo-woo pseudo-spiritual' stuff that is integrated into yoga, then it might just distract them (and/or fool them) enough that they won't notice that they're doing actual work, and keep doing it. Really, honestly, seriously, if I could find a way to get 100% of people to exercise willingly and regularly, I'd be a multi-billonaire from the idea.
As someone else already said: just have the cashier enter the code. Really, it's not that hard. Even at self-checkout stations, you can pick from a picture menu, or if you're clever you can remember the code; bananas are '4011', for instance. Then they'll not only save on paper and adhesive but on expensive laser printing systems.
We can live on plant matter alone.
I really don't want to get into a big debate on the subject of whether humans are omnivores or herbivores, but you might want to check whether that statement is really as accurate as it could be; while humans can 'survive' on a vegetarian diet, I'd argue against the idea that they can 'thrive' or have 'optimal health' on a vegetarian diet alone.