The new Trump reality means if its a USA system its a hostile-to-freedom system.
Please give examples of any less 'hostile-to-freedom' systems that exist? I.e. is there some other country whose systems you feel are thus 'less hostile to freedom'? Please name them, and explain in more detail.
And while Trump may raise some anxieties, perhaps altogether appropriately on these issues, Snowden's revelations about the USA tech systems under Obama does not suggest that Trump is necessarily a true game changer in this regard.
But certainly, a system least hostile to freedom would look like a system generated from a 3D printer sitting in your own home. With full inspectable and modifiable designs/layouts/code under FOSS style licences.
That said, if you want to avoid being spied on, you shouldn't carry around the most sophisticated piece of surveillance equipment that man has ever created.
Or if you do because you don't want to forgo the tactical advantages, you may at least want to have the battery, microphones, cameras, and antennae temporarily physically disconnected, all inside a faraday baggie carrying pouch.
The prototype only works on Google Nexus and Pixel hardware, as these are the only Android device lines, Perry wrote, that "support Verified Boot with user-controlled keys."
As long as it remains "as much privacy and security as you can afford", while the masses opt for sub $50 phones that treat them like cattle... What we need is herd level expectations of privacy. FOSS top to bottom, lowest barriers to forking competing alternatives. I only trust upstreams that don't behave as though not trusting them is a bad thing.
"They were perfectly willing to suppress material facts made public by law enforcement because it conflicted with a multiculturalist ideology. "
Very flawed analysis.
Are you using that personal mail and web server to promote your consulting business. Don't lie, you know you are. Pay for the business tier, cheap liar.
Snark as you will, but I do think this highlights the underlying issue. The pro-net-neutrality vision that I see is trying to eliminate the differential charging of internet access services based on type of use (assuming same amount of use). The idea is that this creates a platform that many people can build on. The anti-net-neutrality vision that I see is derogatorily referred to as a kind of 'crony capitalism' where the powerful ISP captains of industry get to leverage their control and power to influence the evolution of the internet based innovation. I.e. giving sweet heart deals to the technology or technology business owner of their preference. Certain Ayn Randian contingents of the hardest-core forms of leisse fairre capitalism believe that to get to that position of power, the ISP owner was smarter than the other competitors, so is likely to make the smartest decisions and sweet heart deals to influence things in they way they prefer.
Think of it like this- that "business class" higher margin can be thought of as the ISP imposing taxes on their customers. If they have one customer, that uses the same bandwidth as every other user, but makes 100X the profit, they can charge up to say 1/10 of that extra 99X profit as a "super business class" tier that the customer must buy if they want to be retained as a customer. If the market is sufficiently non-competitive due to lack of options, or collusions amongst a few big ISP players, then the 100X innovator will just go ahead and pay the extra new non-governmental 10% tax because the other choice is to go out of business.
Mainly I contemplate what a billionaire with presidential powers can do with modern and near future drone, torture, and mass surveillance technology. I don't think an AK-47 is going to make a difference.
If they are common carriers then they can not inspect the content they carry and as such are not liable for that content.
I'm pretty sure Amtrak is allowed to check to make sure you aren't shipping large quantities of radioactive material on their cars. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as "reasonable rail transportation management".
For the uninitiated, the rules passed last year prevent companies internet providers from discriminating against any online content or services.
It was always BS. Until I don't have to pay extra through the nose to my ISP in order to be allowed to run an irc server I'll never believe this net neutrality crap was legit.
the manufacturers would have to provide, in some form, what their devices are supposed to be able to connect to, so that the firewall can block it from connecting to everything else.
Not really true. This is the sort of malware signature/whitelist-pattern database that can be easily generated and maintained in a distributed fashion, along with full web of trust weighted tuning. You simply start by sniffing a device for a day of 'normal operation' and assume that is all it needs to do. Early adopters (beta testers of the whitelist version) will suffer problems with corner cases, but then that can be iterated and factored in. At some point if it is popular and accomplishes the goal and makes enough people happy, manufacturers will start to cooperate out of self interested convenience (note how openwrt seems to be used by many manufacturers).
Of course that comes around to- all this 'smart' firewall BuSiness is just basically a small enhancement to the existing general solution of an FOSS firewall that can thus fairly easily be modified to accomplish this theorized rule improvement. Go forth and build and test and the fittest will survive. Play a big game of capture the flag with bitcoins and I'll sign up for the ruleset that has succeeded in defending a $1M pile of bitcoins for more than a year.
"Does such a firewall exist? Is this a possible Kickstarter project?"
hashtag smart iptables config is better than stupid iptables config
hashtag firewalls never stopped mattering
hashtag so you really want to know how sausage is made with tcpdump
hashtag what is old is new again
hashtag whatever happened to tripwire
hashtag why won't my isp let me run an irc server at home
I don't think anyone is suggesting we can get to 100% fully informed truth, but getting rid of the worst politically motivated lies and clickbait would be a vast improvement.
I disagree with every fiber of my being. I won't pledge allegiance to a flag, but I'll pledge allegiance to the idea that free speech and democracy are best served when bad speech is countered by more speech, not by 'getting rid' of 'clickbait'. As far as the worst politically motivated lies go, I would argue that libel and slander laws matter.
Domain names are a nickname for an IP address, nothing more.
Despite the rest of your comment, your opening sentence/point was key. I worry the rest of your commentary style has the (un?)intended effect of discrediting the import of that opening gem.
I would instead follow this key point up with the idea that the next important thing to look at is a similar quest for accountability vis-a-vis numeric IP addresses. From my past debates on slashdot and similar forums, that seems to also possibly be a topic that is beyond realistic expectation of reasonable policy any time soon.
I like to think of the issue as- There is this communication tool. Is there anything to prevent this tool from being used to perpetrate large scale persuasion with outright anonymous death threats. Generally the new electronic communication tools tend to be such that this doesn't happen, even though we live in quite a machiavellian world. If someone gets a random death threat on their landline or mobile phone, they call the phone company and eventually the police explain why they did or did not arrest the perp. I'm guessing the answer is just about never because the phone company was unable to provide the police with an obvious trail/trace to follow. Now perhaps the perp got away because it was a call made from a phone booth. But not because the phone company couldn't or wouldn't tell the police where and which phone originated the call.
But then again I thought Trump couldn't possibly win, so do please take my opinion with the appropriate grain of salt.
Whats wrong with neural nets, its the only known technique that can produce programs capable of performing tasks a programmer doesn't know how to do.
Show some love for Genetic Algorithms. Sure you may have to thoroughly verify that their 'better than a programmer' optimal solution is actually a correct solution but- they have existed for a long time even if as yet unspectacularly leveraged (in publicly visible ways that would have made them rank in your book)
Umm, kindof by definition you admit you don't know how bad it was/is. So it seems like a pointless question to me. What you really mean is, how much of the bad will I have the misfortune of learning during my lifetime. Yeah, that is a scary question.
"I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have."
Let me try and rephrase that for you- "I'm a [insert color here] [insert gender here] [insert sexual orientation here] [insert any religious affiliation here] 'Merican. I love this country and the freedoms that a subset of my nation has had for a subset of its history."
We should be terrified of where things might go. But it doesn't make where things have been better than they actually were. Of course, I'm going to take a wild guess that you filled in white male non-sodomite torture-loving jesus phreak above.
"So who claimed he did? Are you arguing with the voices in your head again?"
my rss feed claims that slashdot ran this originally with the headline "antivirus tools are a useless box-ticking exercise says google security engineer".
Way to stigmatize critical thinking and mental health in the same AC tweet scale word vomiting.
You need a lot of people willing to literally go to *this* government's jails in a civil disobedience protest for this tactic to work as anything other than a weaponized surprise attack that if carried out at scale would cause even further unpleasantness to those arrested. I'm not all that optimistic that even if you had all those people willing to take that risk, that you would effect enough pressure on the government to change. By the point you got enough people that hard core about the issue, you might as well fight your battle with newspaper editorials and opinion essays. I think that would be more successful anyway.
I am not sure how Comcast could detect unapproved equipment I connect to the network anyway. Once it hits the router/modem and gets NAT, it's all the same MAC and IP address.
It seems my quote above wasn't entirely applicable as it seems to be about cable modems. However the rest of their ToS/AUP seems to go far enough out of its way to avoid consideration of a home email or web server, that my general feeling hasn't changed. I admit, that Comcast may actually be one of the better ISPs in this regard. My including them in a list was 100% due to quoting the parent comment I replied to.
That said, I just did take a look, and here is the actual relevant citation under the "Technical Restrictions" of the internet service AUP-
use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network (“Premises LAN”), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, email, web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
Read your Verizon/Comcast/ATT terms of service and acceptable use policies. This is already in place.
I see no such terms of service in my Comcast agreement. Can you provide a citation that supports your claim? I am not sure how Comcast could detect unapproved equipment I connect to the network anyway. Once it hits the router/modem and gets NAT, it's all the same MAC and IP address.
This sounds relevant- (found via comcast.com, clicking under the mindset of an internet subscriber looking for the ToS/AUP, correct me if you think it is not applicable. emphasis added by me)-
"These rules pertain to the attachment of devices to our High-Speed Internet network by customers. You can find information concerning the devices approved for use on the network, and the tiers of our service that they are appropriate for at http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.ne..."
Slashdot Mirror
Please give examples of any less 'hostile-to-freedom' systems that exist? I.e. is there some other country whose systems you feel are thus 'less hostile to freedom'? Please name them, and explain in more detail.
And while Trump may raise some anxieties, perhaps altogether appropriately on these issues, Snowden's revelations about the USA tech systems under Obama does not suggest that Trump is necessarily a true game changer in this regard.
But certainly, a system least hostile to freedom would look like a system generated from a 3D printer sitting in your own home. With full inspectable and modifiable designs/layouts/code under FOSS style licences.
Or if you do because you don't want to forgo the tactical advantages, you may at least want to have the battery, microphones, cameras, and antennae temporarily physically disconnected, all inside a faraday baggie carrying pouch.
As long as it remains "as much privacy and security as you can afford", while the masses opt for sub $50 phones that treat them like cattle... What we need is herd level expectations of privacy. FOSS top to bottom, lowest barriers to forking competing alternatives. I only trust upstreams that don't behave as though not trusting them is a bad thing.
To me it is more of a Free Speech right. In my worldview, Free Speech encompasses GPG and SSH and therefore encompasses private communication as well.
You didn't seem to include sufficient explanation of how that statement conflicts with, e.g.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/06/12/net-neutrality-takes-effect-today-heres-how-it-affects-you/
"They were perfectly willing to suppress material facts made public by law enforcement because it conflicted with a multiculturalist ideology. " Very flawed analysis.
Are you using that personal mail and web server to promote your consulting business. Don't lie, you know you are. Pay for the business tier, cheap liar.
Snark as you will, but I do think this highlights the underlying issue. The pro-net-neutrality vision that I see is trying to eliminate the differential charging of internet access services based on type of use (assuming same amount of use). The idea is that this creates a platform that many people can build on. The anti-net-neutrality vision that I see is derogatorily referred to as a kind of 'crony capitalism' where the powerful ISP captains of industry get to leverage their control and power to influence the evolution of the internet based innovation. I.e. giving sweet heart deals to the technology or technology business owner of their preference. Certain Ayn Randian contingents of the hardest-core forms of leisse fairre capitalism believe that to get to that position of power, the ISP owner was smarter than the other competitors, so is likely to make the smartest decisions and sweet heart deals to influence things in they way they prefer.
Think of it like this- that "business class" higher margin can be thought of as the ISP imposing taxes on their customers. If they have one customer, that uses the same bandwidth as every other user, but makes 100X the profit, they can charge up to say 1/10 of that extra 99X profit as a "super business class" tier that the customer must buy if they want to be retained as a customer. If the market is sufficiently non-competitive due to lack of options, or collusions amongst a few big ISP players, then the 100X innovator will just go ahead and pay the extra new non-governmental 10% tax because the other choice is to go out of business.
Mainly I contemplate what a billionaire with presidential powers can do with modern and near future drone, torture, and mass surveillance technology. I don't think an AK-47 is going to make a difference.
I'm pretty sure Amtrak is allowed to check to make sure you aren't shipping large quantities of radioactive material on their cars. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as "reasonable rail transportation management".
The loopholes are large and easily navigable.
It was always BS. Until I don't have to pay extra through the nose to my ISP in order to be allowed to run an irc server I'll never believe this net neutrality crap was legit.
Not really true. This is the sort of malware signature/whitelist-pattern database that can be easily generated and maintained in a distributed fashion, along with full web of trust weighted tuning. You simply start by sniffing a device for a day of 'normal operation' and assume that is all it needs to do. Early adopters (beta testers of the whitelist version) will suffer problems with corner cases, but then that can be iterated and factored in. At some point if it is popular and accomplishes the goal and makes enough people happy, manufacturers will start to cooperate out of self interested convenience (note how openwrt seems to be used by many manufacturers).
Of course that comes around to- all this 'smart' firewall BuSiness is just basically a small enhancement to the existing general solution of an FOSS firewall that can thus fairly easily be modified to accomplish this theorized rule improvement. Go forth and build and test and the fittest will survive. Play a big game of capture the flag with bitcoins and I'll sign up for the ruleset that has succeeded in defending a $1M pile of bitcoins for more than a year.
hashtag smart iptables config is better than stupid iptables config
hashtag firewalls never stopped mattering
hashtag so you really want to know how sausage is made with tcpdump
hashtag what is old is new again
hashtag whatever happened to tripwire
hashtag why won't my isp let me run an irc server at home
I don't think anyone is suggesting we can get to 100% fully informed truth, but getting rid of the worst politically motivated lies and clickbait would be a vast improvement.
I disagree with every fiber of my being. I won't pledge allegiance to a flag, but I'll pledge allegiance to the idea that free speech and democracy are best served when bad speech is countered by more speech, not by 'getting rid' of 'clickbait'. As far as the worst politically motivated lies go, I would argue that libel and slander laws matter.
Well that IS fake then.
hashtag trademark law matters
Despite the rest of your comment, your opening sentence/point was key. I worry the rest of your commentary style has the (un?)intended effect of discrediting the import of that opening gem.
I would instead follow this key point up with the idea that the next important thing to look at is a similar quest for accountability vis-a-vis numeric IP addresses. From my past debates on slashdot and similar forums, that seems to also possibly be a topic that is beyond realistic expectation of reasonable policy any time soon.
I like to think of the issue as- There is this communication tool. Is there anything to prevent this tool from being used to perpetrate large scale persuasion with outright anonymous death threats. Generally the new electronic communication tools tend to be such that this doesn't happen, even though we live in quite a machiavellian world. If someone gets a random death threat on their landline or mobile phone, they call the phone company and eventually the police explain why they did or did not arrest the perp. I'm guessing the answer is just about never because the phone company was unable to provide the police with an obvious trail/trace to follow. Now perhaps the perp got away because it was a call made from a phone booth. But not because the phone company couldn't or wouldn't tell the police where and which phone originated the call.
But then again I thought Trump couldn't possibly win, so do please take my opinion with the appropriate grain of salt.
Seriously, watch all five seasons of HBO's 'The Wire'. Make of it what you will, but I'm pretty sure it's critically relevant to this topic.
Show some love for Genetic Algorithms. Sure you may have to thoroughly verify that their 'better than a programmer' optimal solution is actually a correct solution but- they have existed for a long time even if as yet unspectacularly leveraged (in publicly visible ways that would have made them rank in your book)
What if the effect was to get the DNC to start using GPG and other best telecommunications security practices effectively?
no mod points, +1 anyway
"how bad can/will the secret stuff become?"
Umm, kindof by definition you admit you don't know how bad it was/is. So it seems like a pointless question to me. What you really mean is, how much of the bad will I have the misfortune of learning during my lifetime. Yeah, that is a scary question.
"I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have."
Let me try and rephrase that for you- "I'm a [insert color here] [insert gender here] [insert sexual orientation here] [insert any religious affiliation here] 'Merican. I love this country and the freedoms that a subset of my nation has had for a subset of its history."
We should be terrified of where things might go. But it doesn't make where things have been better than they actually were. Of course, I'm going to take a wild guess that you filled in white male non-sodomite torture-loving jesus phreak above.
"So who claimed he did? Are you arguing with the voices in your head again?"
my rss feed claims that slashdot ran this originally with the headline "antivirus tools are a useless box-ticking exercise says google security engineer".
Way to stigmatize critical thinking and mental health in the same AC tweet scale word vomiting.
"Public to effect pressure on the government."
You need a lot of people willing to literally go to *this* government's jails in a civil disobedience protest for this tactic to work as anything other than a weaponized surprise attack that if carried out at scale would cause even further unpleasantness to those arrested. I'm not all that optimistic that even if you had all those people willing to take that risk, that you would effect enough pressure on the government to change. By the point you got enough people that hard core about the issue, you might as well fight your battle with newspaper editorials and opinion essays. I think that would be more successful anyway.
It seems my quote above wasn't entirely applicable as it seems to be about cable modems. However the rest of their ToS/AUP seems to go far enough out of its way to avoid consideration of a home email or web server, that my general feeling hasn't changed. I admit, that Comcast may actually be one of the better ISPs in this regard. My including them in a list was 100% due to quoting the parent comment I replied to.
That said, I just did take a look, and here is the actual relevant citation under the "Technical Restrictions" of the internet service AUP-
http://www.xfinity.com/Corpora...
f34db7369ef535e9442 ec6e828e2356087bf47 b0c2a4202d56de7c70d 4744615b306a53b3799 57c2926f1809d938fab5 450767a578384a083b3 71584e6f24ee3 Acceptable-Use-Policy-forXFINITY-Internet-effective-November-1-2016-ENG.pdf
Read your Verizon/Comcast/ATT terms of service and acceptable use policies. This is already in place.
I see no such terms of service in my Comcast agreement. Can you provide a citation that supports your claim? I am not sure how Comcast could detect unapproved equipment I connect to the network anyway. Once it hits the router/modem and gets NAT, it's all the same MAC and IP address.
This sounds relevant- (found via comcast.com, clicking under the mindset of an internet subscriber looking for the ToS/AUP, correct me if you think it is not applicable. emphasis added by me)-
http://networkmanagement.xfini...
"These rules pertain to the attachment of devices to our High-Speed Internet network by customers. You can find information concerning the devices approved for use on the network, and the tiers of our service that they are appropriate for at http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.ne..."