Except that buses have predefined routes, allowing the road and signposting quality to be better controlled, and perhaps even technology built into the road itself. And bus drivers are employees who could, if needed, be subjected to regular testing and training on the capabilities of their systems, and perhaps even subjected to real-time monitoring to ensure they're not abusing the system. Agree or not, but public transport is a much better-controlled environment for a system like this.
I still think buses are a terrible test-bed.
1) The risk way worse. Not only do you have potentially dozens of passengers at risk on board the bus. But the bus itself is massive and could cause a huge amount of damage to other vehicles and pedestrians.
2) The utility is nil, there's already a highly skilled full-time driver.
3) The environment is not more controlled, buses are much more complicated to operate, regularly pulling in and out of traffic and generally being massive and unwieldy. And even a regular route changes, navigating around accidents, negotiating construction zones, etc. Finding the route is probably the easiest aspect of driving.
"I think it's likely that in the next few years more people will die because of the Tesla Autopilot than would have died without it"
No, not likely. It's almost certain that Autopilot will be the *cause* of some deaths but it'll also be responsible for saving many more lives. The same guy who died in the tractor-trailer crash posted a video some months back that the car's reaction likely saved his life.
This time around, he was driving very irresponsibly and the truck he hit was executing a maneuver that isn't allowed in sane jurisdictions - something that Florida has rarely been confused with.
a) Even if he did get hit the likely outcome would have been the ditch. Dangerous and possibly fatal but a far cry from "likely saved his life".
b) Most drivers are pretty aware of their periphery, I've had people try to merge into me before and reacted appropriately. The only reason the car had to react to save him is because he was letting the autopilot drive and wasn't really paying attention. Exactly the thing that got him killed.
Yeah. And people get distracted and miss stop signs and stop lights all the time. The question isn't whether "it will result in deaths" the key word that you have in there that's ambiguous is "Additional". Additional in comparison to the technology not-existing or additional in addition to the (1) that has occurred.
I didn't include "additional" by accident, I think it's likely that in the next few years more people will die because of the Tesla Autopilot than would have died without it.
Absolutely the latter. I wager the edge cases where the code fails will vastly be outnumbered by the edge cases where a human brain fails.
Musk wants to be the first guy to make a self-driving car. In part because he measures "Additional" by relative terms instead of sensationalist media outlets who measure it in absolute terms. Relative terms is in my not so humble opinion the obvious way we should be measuring safety. If we ban technology which is superior to the status quo, because it's not perfect we're denying life-saving technology because of irrational paranoia.
Long-term AI's will probably be safer, but I don't think we're there yet and I'm not sure how far off we really are. The whole idea of this human-AI driving partnership may be fatally flawed from a safety perspective. It may never be safer than pure human drivers due to the inevitability of human distraction and the erosion of the human's driving abilities.
To the extent that Musk has considered this I believe he's rationalized away any concerns because he really wants to go down in history as the pioneer of self-driving cars.
Now when there's too much sunlight we can have Teslas not recognise traffic lights, and drive straight through intersections causing T-bone accidents and pileups.
It's a shame their programmers who work on this full time will never think of this problem and add detection and maps/GPS augmentation. You should probably call them up and offer your advice.
You still have the issue of recognizing the colour of the light, a light that's burnt out, a light that is covered because of repairs, different bulb types, stop signs that fell down or got knocked off centre, etc, etc.
The issue isn't that Telsa has dumb programmers, I'm sure they're brilliant.
The issue is they're being given an incredibly difficult task with extremely high stakes and a very short time line because Musk wants to be the first guy to make a self-driving car.
Someone just died because of a bug in their software and Musk's response was to essentially make up a number and claim that proved they were safe.
I don't care how good the programmers are that's not a good combination, I think it's really likely that this is going to result in additional deaths.
He continued, “Indeed, if anyone bothered to do the math (obviously, you did not) they would realize that of the over 1M auto deaths per year worldwide, approximately half a million people would have been saved if the Tesla autopilot was universally available. Please, take 5 mins and do the bloody math before you write an article that misleads the public.”
Are these projections from peer-reviewed research published in a proper journal? Are these projections based on public Tesla claims? Is this Elon Musk pulling numbers out of his trunk?
Considering these are real lives of actual people at stake I hope Tesla did some serious research before selling these to the public.
So a guy had a weird death shortly before testifying at his own trial for corruption, and he had a "connection" to Clinton because back during Bill Clinton's presidency he funnelled some illegal donations to the DNC .
Maybe he committed suicide (as people on trial sometimes do), or maybe he was murdered. Though if he was murdered you probably want to look at the corrupt billionaire who is on bail awaiting trial for the exact scheme this guy was on trial for.
So yeah, this is just like those other "mysterious deaths", an idiotic accusation containing blatant levels of dishonesty.
Seriously, at what point does gross negligence become criminal? That's the real question.
No idea but according to Comey they could find any similar cases that were prosecuted.
Even if it doesn't, as someone who works in a classified environment I can tell you that if I did this, I would be fired, lose my clearance, and most certainly never be granted another. I find this whole charade pretty upsetting.
Though in your case you would have also been violating orders from a superior, Clinton's position is a bit different since she was the one in charge. She did ignore the advice of the State Department but she did have some legitimate autonomy in finding a system that worked for her.
Realistically you shouldn't be throwing politicians in jail unless there's really clear evidence of a serious crime, sure it means there a bit of a double standard, but imagine President Trump's justice department investigating a political opponent for a borderline offence.
If the voters think this means Clinton should be President they should vote for someone else, if they think someone else is even more terrible they should go back to voting for Clinton or just sit out.
Really, what was the better outcome to this situation?
I've regularly driven 5 to 7 hours at a time visiting family and friends every few weekends, and I almost always use my cruise control on the interstate. I have no idea why a Tesla which has enhanced cruise control and little else other than a collision warning system would make a human being so much more bored and inattentive they'd drive straight into a truck after changing lanes. That's just nonsense. I keep the A/C on high and play music or podcasts to entertain me, but I never zone out, change lanes, and run into the back of trucks. Not sure who on earth would.
The Tesla's enhancements don't ask the driver to "do nothing" any more than my cruise control does. They still have to physically tell the car to change lanes, watch the road for crazy drivers, note when and where to turn off the main road (even driving interstates, one can go through many off-ramps, yet still be on the same interstate), etc. It's not like a getting into a cab and telling the driver where you want to go.
When you drive with cruise control you still need your hands on the wheel, even if you don't care about safety you're still paying attention to the road because you need to make slight course adjustments every few seconds just to stay in your lane.
The autopilot allows you to take your hands off the wheel entirely, that's a completely different experience, there's literally no reason pay attention other than not trusting the AI. And as you learn to trust the AI more then you start paying attention less, this person apparently trusted it enough that they thought they could half watch the road while playing a Harry Potter DVD.
People said exactly the same thing about cruise control when it first came out too. But then it was shown that by taking away the routine throttle adjustments, and the discomfort of holding your leg in exactly the same position for hours on end, driving actually became safer.
Same thing here, I drive on autopilot daily, and by not having to to worry about the routine, I can focus my attention more fully on my environment to better anticipate potential problems ahead.
Unfortunately the world is full of absolute idiots and lawyers who will ruin it for those of us who use the system add it was intended, as it was advertised, and add the warning that you acknowledge every single time you enable the system tells you.
Possibly, but they were wrong. You still have to steer with cruise control so you don't have the option of disengaging from driving. With autopilot disengaging is the default behaviour, you need to actively engage in paying attention even though there's no apparent need to do so. For the vast majority of people growing complacent and tuning out is inevitable.
But no, people are going to try and blame automation, because otherwise it would be a dead person at fault.. And that is just not nice, right? However, this is NOT a case where a driver jumped on the brakes and they did not work, or tried to turn the car and it went straight ahead (at least none of that is being claimed). It is a case where a driver of a car at speed was not aware of the road directly ahead of them, that makes this border on a darwin here folks..
Sure the person was at fault for paying attention while driving.
But people not paying attention while driving is the obvious outcome of giving a car an "autopilot" that operates on highways.
It's troubling because we actually know what is happening here. This is just some weird start up company that apparently didn't bother to read any of the academic work in this area.
It's not the pitch of the speaker's voice. It's the way they speak. The choice of words, the level of confidence and self promotion. And as these people found in their experiment, when "feminine" speech patterns are associated with a male they are perceived as being even worse, because the subconscious "ideal man" doesn't speak that way. This is true regardless of the gender of the interviewer, it's institutional bias in society rather than individuals being sexist or anything like that.
I think this is an important point.
For example interviewers like confidence and given the same level of expertise men tend to speak more confidently than women. Therefore a good interviewer will tend to balance the effect by downgrading the confidence a man shows while upgrading the confidence a woman gives.
If you switch the gender of the voices this backfires and you end up exaggerating the bias instead of cancelling it.
The good news is there isn't a conscious bias against women.
The bad news is that employers select for primarily male characteristics, characteristics which may not be the best predictor of performance, particularly when comparing different genders.
Your scenario will get you exactly the outcome you'll find if you look around the world at countries who jail politicians
Such as the USA and every other democracy?
Your scenario will get you exactly the outcome you'll find if you look around the world at countries who jail politicians
Such as the USA and every other democracy?
Well no, the US does not jail politicians, not for carrying out their duties in a way that violates the law.
It does jail them for corruption because that's not a political crime, that's them using their position for personal benefit. But you don't go to jail because your idea of what your job entailed was judged illegal.
A large portion of our (and virtually all other life) is partially composed of virus-inserted code.
To a virus, life isn't really a thing to begin with, only DNA interactions, with rare opportunities to copy.
From that perspective, death of the host body just means it's bacteria party time, and even if 99% of organelles used to copy are kaput, almost all viruses are bacteria-predators anyway. So, hiding away in human DNA for a few hundred generations or whatever is just a distraction from getting to the (ambiguous) goal of a bacteria to infect.
[...]
Niches for DNA code are massively multidimensional, and even though the possibility space for success is outrageously sparse, the life that lives in the outer reaches of possiblity doesn't have be intelligent to know it's a bad idea, and so spreads where we can't imagine. Things like life that only has the chance to reproduce every few hundred years (using another life form's mechanisms to keep their DNA active in the meantime), or has to jump between 3 species in order to continue a full reproduction cycle.
I'm not sure this story holds up. The moment a virus gene is inserted into our genome its reproductive cycle becomes tied to ours. Even if some virus DNA could escape our cells and infect bacteria post-mortem they'd just become ordinary viruses.
The only way for genes to retain function is for that function to be subject to natural selection. But as long as those virus genes are trapped in a human DNA strand the only way for them to propagate is through people, and the moment they escaped they'd be tied to that new organism. There's nothing in human reproduction that ensures that transplanted virus strands stay functional viruses.
A gene going through a multi-species reproductive cycle sounds interesting, but I'm really skeptical it's happening. At least in humans that cross-species jump is just too difficult.
The idea of accountability though criminal law sounds nice
It's not just nice, it's been a major part of law in English speaking countries since King John.
"No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it." - Theodore Roosevelt
I don't put them above the law, I just use different enforcement mechanisms. When it comes to policy the law is vague enough that it's basically just a framework for people to negotiate boundaries.
If the court tells the President they don't have the authority to do X then the President stops. The fact the President didn't go to jail doesn't mean they disobey the law.
And just who is it to say a politician has broken the law? I think "In God We Trust" on the money is obviously unconstitutional but the SCOTUS disagrees, should the Secretary of the Treasury be throw in jail? Or should the President be thrown in jail if the SCOTUS rules 5-4 against one of their actions?
If you want a despotic King or a Tsar then just be honest about it instead of going on about "You live in a Democracy. If you think a politician has something wrong then it's the responsibility of you and your fellow voters to handle it".
You apparently think politicians are so horribly corrupt that throwing the bad ones in jail is the only answer. But if that's the case then they're not just going to sit back and let judges throw them in jail. They'll just corrupt the judges as well!
Your scenario will get you exactly the outcome you'll find if you look around the world at countries who jail politicians. Corrupt courts with despotic Kings and Tsars.
Right. Out of the box there are serious problems and the number increases every bugtraq perusal. Without a team dedicated to security on the server it really is as simple as running some rudimentary scans, cross-referencing CVEs and then popping an appropriate script / command procedure. That the server was likely administered remotely and definitely had no on-site 24/7 presence to monitor only makes the task easier.
This conversation feels like a handful of ACs talking to someone that does not know how infosec works let alone how attackers operate.
And what evidence do you have that Guccifer knew how to do any of those things? Just because you have the knowledge so it's easy for you doesn't mean he could do the same. (You're also assuming they never actually installed any updates)
Kinda sad for a tech site for someone to put the word pentesting in quotes and call it vague. Welcome to IT quantaman. This is how security is broken on systems incompetently ran from someone's basement.
I put it in quotes because the poster didn't know what the frack they were talking about. They conflated hacking Blumenthal's account with hacking Clinton, like logging into Blumenthal's webmail meant Guccifer had already partially compromised Clinton's server.
Getting Blumenthal's email basically told him that Clinton's server existed, I see no reason to assume he even knew how to use the administration tools he supposedly may have hacked.
It's more than possible that Clinton's sever was hacked by some foreign government, but if Guccifer had done so we already would have seen the emails along with the gloats about what an awesome hacker he is.
i won't believe our justice system holds any actual justice until these individuals are arrested and taken to court for wilful violation of their oaths of office and for violating the 4th amendment rights of 300 million US citizens (and the civil rights of innocent people all around the world):
James Clapper Dianne Feinstein Keith Alexander Mike Rogers George W Bush Barack Obama
There are probably others too, but at least those people. It shouldn't be a witch-hunt. They deserve the presumption of innocence, due process, and to be tried by a jury of their peers the same as anyone does. Still, there is plenty of reasonable cause for them to stand trial.
If we are not willing to do this, then our society has devolved into "laws for thee but not for me". If that's what we want, then fine, but let's make it official, and write it into our legal system that high ranking party officials are considered to be above the law. Let's pass a new constitutional amendment to that effect: we no longer want government officials to be subject to the law. And let's repeal the 4th, which we can do with a 2/3 majority of states voting for that. It would at least be honest.
I sympathize, but I think it's a terrible idea.
Western Democracy has a norm that politicians carrying out their duties are restrained by the courts and judged by the ballot box, with the exception of things like corruption they don't go to prison for carrying out their jobs, even if they did things that were illegal.
The idea of accountability though criminal law sounds nice, but then Democrats think Cheney should be in jail for ordering torture, Republicans think Obama should be in jail for executive orders, and the political dialogue becomes that much more dysfunctional as everyone starts claiming the judiciary should throw their opponents in jail (as if it isn't politicized enough already).
You live in a Democracy. If you think a politician has something wrong then it's the responsibility of you and your fellow voters to handle it.
Utter nonsense. Go look at some statistics on standards of living in various third world nations.
Oh, wait, that would require listening to experts. Never mind, go back to your echo chamber.
We don't have to listen to experts to see the reality here, even if it's a reality you don't want to admit exists.
The third world, even after 25+ years of globalization, is still a total shithole.
It's absolutely shocking that 25 years of globalization hasn't brought the entire 3rd world up to the same level as the first world!
That's why we continue to see people from these areas try to get into developed nations, even when these developed nations are a shell of what they once were, before globalization ruined them.
No, it's because being wealthier, some of them now have the money and education to relocate.
Just look at all of the illegal aliens who try to cross the Mediterranean each day, risking their lives. They wouldn't be doing this if the places they were coming from were nice places to live!
Yeah, totally globalization, I mean it's not like a psychotic death cult just took over part of Syria.
Essentially all of Africa is an awful place to live. Nearly all of the Middle East is an awful place to live. Much of India is an awful place to live. Much of Mexico, Central America and even South America are awful places to live.
And much of them are decent places to live, not as nice as the first world but a hell of a lot better than they were 25 years ago.
The only exception may be China. We're actually seeing some small degree of success there, but despite its large population it's still quite proportionally small.
It's mostly anecdotal at this point but there already seems to be a lot of buyers remorse. Thoughts on the possibility they'll have a follow-up "are you really sure?" referendum or at least an election where one of the parties campaigns on ignoring the result.
The reason it keeps happening is that when it happens, the CEO (who, incidentally, decided that security was an expense to be minimized) merely says "Oops, sorry." and then there are no consequences.
I think that's it. It's not that companies don't care about security, it's just that they can't really afford to care that much. Good security doesn't make them any money and bad security doesn't cost that much, in a world of finite resources the things with poor ROI are the ones that get neglected.
So gaining unauthorized access to a system by the path of least resistance doesn't count all of a sudden?
Whether you call guessing password reset questions "hacking" or not doesn't matter, what he did was fundamentally social engineering and demonstrates none of the level of technical competence he'd require to hack Clinton's server.
Why go through a bunch of Mission: Impossible vent crawling bullshit when they leave the front door wide open and the cameras off?
Fine, he didn't 'hack' the server. But he still likely gained unauthorized access. And you look like an idiot.
Why do you think he gained access? Because he said he did? Then why didn't he brag about it at the time and demonstrate proof like he did for every other hack he did?
You're putting a lot of faith in the vague unsubstantiated word of an imprisoned social engineer.
The 'hacker' could be a charlatan who got lucky. Or, maybe not.
Imagine you are a world class burglar. You approach the target and find that they have left a key under the door mat, with the security system password written on the key chain that is attached. Easy entry. You could have picked the locks and used gymnastic flips to jump through the laser alarm system. But there was no need. The target was obviously a chump. It doesn't mean you aren't at the top of your game.
Imagine you're walking around a city and the cops just caught a pickpocket.
The pickpocket shouts, "Aha! You know I also broke into the Art Gallery last week! I bypassed their security system and took all the paintings off the wall! But didn't like any so I put them back and left."
Now, the pickpocket could be telling the truth, that he knows how to bypass security systems and steal valuable art, but instead pays his bills with the proceeds of picking pockets.
He could be telling the truth, but I'm giving his story about as much credibility as Guccifer's.
What's the defense for starting a civil war in Syria against all recommendations of the Department of Defense that directly aided ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups, killed 400k people, displaced millions of migrants, and then taking at least $10 million in donations from the Saudis who were the only ones to gain from the whole ordeal?
You sure we're talking about the same Syria? I don't recall the US starting any civil wars there. Iran and Russia have been helping Assad while Turkey was actually giving some help to ISIS, but the US has generally been on the sidelines.
It's really embarrassing who we have running for President. Neither one is worthy or skilled or trustworthy to hold the office. Has it really come down to cheats, liars, and ever other derogatory trait that we have. I hope a bunch of stuff totally kills both Clinton and Trump's hopes for President. Let's have a write in campaign and vote for people with some sense of moderate views that might actually believe in them too.
If you want to say Clinton isn't trustworthy that's fine, I think it's BS but it's your opinion.
But not skilled enough???
She's widely acknowledged to be a ridiculous policy wonk, she served 8 years as a senator, 4 years as secretary of state, 20 years as a politically involved first lady (first of Arkansas then the US), and she had a successful law career.
What else do you want for a candidate to be considered "skilled"?
"Lazar said he did extensive research on the web and then guessed Blumenthal’s security question. Once inside Blumenthal's account, Lazar said he saw dozens of messages from the Clinton email address."
He did not get admin access.
That he got into Blumenthal's email account, and read emails to/from Clinton in Blumenthal's account, is a well established fact.
This is about the completely separate claim he hacked into Clinton's emails/server specifically (he was quite vague but seemed to describe seeing admin level stuff).
He got access to an account and leapfrogged from there. Pentesting 101 material. Access is access no matter how it was done. Leave the leetspeak and elitism back in the 90s.
I find "leapfrogged" and "pentesting" is a bit vague.
Hacking a sever involves a hell of a lot more than getting an email from that server and then running a port scanner.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that buses have predefined routes, allowing the road and signposting quality to be better controlled, and perhaps even technology built into the road itself. And bus drivers are employees who could, if needed, be subjected to regular testing and training on the capabilities of their systems, and perhaps even subjected to real-time monitoring to ensure they're not abusing the system. Agree or not, but public transport is a much better-controlled environment for a system like this.
I still think buses are a terrible test-bed.
1) The risk way worse. Not only do you have potentially dozens of passengers at risk on board the bus. But the bus itself is massive and could cause a huge amount of damage to other vehicles and pedestrians.
2) The utility is nil, there's already a highly skilled full-time driver.
3) The environment is not more controlled, buses are much more complicated to operate, regularly pulling in and out of traffic and generally being massive and unwieldy. And even a regular route changes, navigating around accidents, negotiating construction zones, etc. Finding the route is probably the easiest aspect of driving.
"I think it's likely that in the next few years more people will die because of the Tesla Autopilot than would have died without it"
No, not likely. It's almost certain that Autopilot will be the *cause* of some deaths but it'll also be responsible for saving many more lives.
The same guy who died in the tractor-trailer crash posted a video some months back that the car's reaction likely saved his life.
This time around, he was driving very irresponsibly and the truck he hit was executing a maneuver that isn't allowed in sane jurisdictions - something that Florida has rarely been confused with.
You mean this video?
a) Even if he did get hit the likely outcome would have been the ditch. Dangerous and possibly fatal but a far cry from "likely saved his life".
b) Most drivers are pretty aware of their periphery, I've had people try to merge into me before and reacted appropriately. The only reason the car had to react to save him is because he was letting the autopilot drive and wasn't really paying attention. Exactly the thing that got him killed.
Yeah. And people get distracted and miss stop signs and stop lights all the time. The question isn't whether "it will result in deaths" the key word that you have in there that's ambiguous is "Additional". Additional in comparison to the technology not-existing or additional in addition to the (1) that has occurred.
I didn't include "additional" by accident, I think it's likely that in the next few years more people will die because of the Tesla Autopilot than would have died without it.
Absolutely the latter. I wager the edge cases where the code fails will vastly be outnumbered by the edge cases where a human brain fails.
Musk wants to be the first guy to make a self-driving car. In part because he measures "Additional" by relative terms instead of sensationalist media outlets who measure it in absolute terms. Relative terms is in my not so humble opinion the obvious way we should be measuring safety. If we ban technology which is superior to the status quo, because it's not perfect we're denying life-saving technology because of irrational paranoia.
Long-term AI's will probably be safer, but I don't think we're there yet and I'm not sure how far off we really are. The whole idea of this human-AI driving partnership may be fatally flawed from a safety perspective. It may never be safer than pure human drivers due to the inevitability of human distraction and the erosion of the human's driving abilities.
To the extent that Musk has considered this I believe he's rationalized away any concerns because he really wants to go down in history as the pioneer of self-driving cars.
Now when there's too much sunlight we can have Teslas not recognise traffic lights, and drive straight through intersections causing T-bone accidents and pileups.
It's a shame their programmers who work on this full time will never think of this problem and add detection and maps/GPS augmentation. You should probably call them up and offer your advice.
You still have the issue of recognizing the colour of the light, a light that's burnt out, a light that is covered because of repairs, different bulb types, stop signs that fell down or got knocked off centre, etc, etc.
The issue isn't that Telsa has dumb programmers, I'm sure they're brilliant.
The issue is they're being given an incredibly difficult task with extremely high stakes and a very short time line because Musk wants to be the first guy to make a self-driving car.
Someone just died because of a bug in their software and Musk's response was to essentially make up a number and claim that proved they were safe.
I don't care how good the programmers are that's not a good combination, I think it's really likely that this is going to result in additional deaths.
He continued, “Indeed, if anyone bothered to do the math (obviously, you did not) they would realize that of the over 1M auto deaths per year worldwide, approximately half a million people would have been saved if the Tesla autopilot was universally available. Please, take 5 mins and do the bloody math before you write an article that misleads the public.”
Are these projections from peer-reviewed research published in a proper journal? Are these projections based on public Tesla claims? Is this Elon Musk pulling numbers out of his trunk?
Considering these are real lives of actual people at stake I hope Tesla did some serious research before selling these to the public.
I'd say anyone not in the pocket of Obama/Hilary Clinton, which means I'd rather trust the loser in the tinfoil hat.
This may be the most informative comment in this entire discussion...
Ask this guy who just happened to "crush his own throat" right before testifying. Then there are all those other mysterious deaths, and so many of those.
So a guy had a weird death shortly before testifying at his own trial for corruption, and he had a "connection" to Clinton because back during Bill Clinton's presidency he funnelled some illegal donations to the DNC .
Maybe he committed suicide (as people on trial sometimes do), or maybe he was murdered. Though if he was murdered you probably want to look at the corrupt billionaire who is on bail awaiting trial for the exact scheme this guy was on trial for.
So yeah, this is just like those other "mysterious deaths", an idiotic accusation containing blatant levels of dishonesty.
Seriously, at what point does gross negligence become criminal? That's the real question.
No idea but according to Comey they could find any similar cases that were prosecuted.
Even if it doesn't, as someone who works in a classified environment I can tell you that if I did this, I would be fired, lose my clearance, and most certainly never be granted another. I find this whole charade pretty upsetting.
Though in your case you would have also been violating orders from a superior, Clinton's position is a bit different since she was the one in charge. She did ignore the advice of the State Department but she did have some legitimate autonomy in finding a system that worked for her.
Realistically you shouldn't be throwing politicians in jail unless there's really clear evidence of a serious crime, sure it means there a bit of a double standard, but imagine President Trump's justice department investigating a political opponent for a borderline offence.
If the voters think this means Clinton should be President they should vote for someone else, if they think someone else is even more terrible they should go back to voting for Clinton or just sit out.
Really, what was the better outcome to this situation?
I've regularly driven 5 to 7 hours at a time visiting family and friends every few weekends, and I almost always use my cruise control on the interstate. I have no idea why a Tesla which has enhanced cruise control and little else other than a collision warning system would make a human being so much more bored and inattentive they'd drive straight into a truck after changing lanes. That's just nonsense. I keep the A/C on high and play music or podcasts to entertain me, but I never zone out, change lanes, and run into the back of trucks. Not sure who on earth would.
The Tesla's enhancements don't ask the driver to "do nothing" any more than my cruise control does. They still have to physically tell the car to change lanes, watch the road for crazy drivers, note when and where to turn off the main road (even driving interstates, one can go through many off-ramps, yet still be on the same interstate), etc. It's not like a getting into a cab and telling the driver where you want to go.
When you drive with cruise control you still need your hands on the wheel, even if you don't care about safety you're still paying attention to the road because you need to make slight course adjustments every few seconds just to stay in your lane.
The autopilot allows you to take your hands off the wheel entirely, that's a completely different experience, there's literally no reason pay attention other than not trusting the AI. And as you learn to trust the AI more then you start paying attention less, this person apparently trusted it enough that they thought they could half watch the road while playing a Harry Potter DVD.
People said exactly the same thing about cruise control when it first came out too. But then it was shown that by taking away the routine throttle adjustments, and the discomfort of holding your leg in exactly the same position for hours on end, driving actually became safer.
Same thing here, I drive on autopilot daily, and by not having to to worry about the routine, I can focus my attention more fully on my environment to better anticipate potential problems ahead.
Unfortunately the world is full of absolute idiots and lawyers who will ruin it for those of us who use the system add it was intended, as it was advertised, and add the warning that you acknowledge every single time you enable the system tells you.
Possibly, but they were wrong. You still have to steer with cruise control so you don't have the option of disengaging from driving. With autopilot disengaging is the default behaviour, you need to actively engage in paying attention even though there's no apparent need to do so. For the vast majority of people growing complacent and tuning out is inevitable.
But no, people are going to try and blame automation, because otherwise it would be a dead person at fault.. And that is
just not nice, right? However, this is NOT a case where a driver jumped on the brakes and they did not work, or tried
to turn the car and it went straight ahead (at least none of that is being claimed). It is a case where a driver of a car
at speed was not aware of the road directly ahead of them, that makes this border on a darwin here folks..
Sure the person was at fault for paying attention while driving.
But people not paying attention while driving is the obvious outcome of giving a car an "autopilot" that operates on highways.
It's troubling because we actually know what is happening here. This is just some weird start up company that apparently didn't bother to read any of the academic work in this area.
It's not the pitch of the speaker's voice. It's the way they speak. The choice of words, the level of confidence and self promotion. And as these people found in their experiment, when "feminine" speech patterns are associated with a male they are perceived as being even worse, because the subconscious "ideal man" doesn't speak that way. This is true regardless of the gender of the interviewer, it's institutional bias in society rather than individuals being sexist or anything like that.
I think this is an important point.
For example interviewers like confidence and given the same level of expertise men tend to speak more confidently than women. Therefore a good interviewer will tend to balance the effect by downgrading the confidence a man shows while upgrading the confidence a woman gives.
If you switch the gender of the voices this backfires and you end up exaggerating the bias instead of cancelling it.
The good news is there isn't a conscious bias against women.
The bad news is that employers select for primarily male characteristics, characteristics which may not be the best predictor of performance, particularly when comparing different genders.
Such as the USA and every other democracy?
Such as the USA and every other democracy?
Well no, the US does not jail politicians, not for carrying out their duties in a way that violates the law.
It does jail them for corruption because that's not a political crime, that's them using their position for personal benefit. But you don't go to jail because your idea of what your job entailed was judged illegal.
A large portion of our (and virtually all other life) is partially composed of virus-inserted code.
To a virus, life isn't really a thing to begin with, only DNA interactions, with rare opportunities to copy.
From that perspective, death of the host body just means it's bacteria party time, and even if 99% of organelles used to copy are kaput, almost all viruses are bacteria-predators anyway. So, hiding away in human DNA for a few hundred generations or whatever is just a distraction from getting to the (ambiguous) goal of a bacteria to infect.
[...]
Niches for DNA code are massively multidimensional, and even though the possibility space for success is outrageously sparse, the life that lives in the outer reaches of possiblity doesn't have be intelligent to know it's a bad idea, and so spreads where we can't imagine. Things like life that only has the chance to reproduce every few hundred years (using another life form's mechanisms to keep their DNA active in the meantime), or has to jump between 3 species in order to continue a full reproduction cycle.
I'm not sure this story holds up. The moment a virus gene is inserted into our genome its reproductive cycle becomes tied to ours. Even if some virus DNA could escape our cells and infect bacteria post-mortem they'd just become ordinary viruses.
The only way for genes to retain function is for that function to be subject to natural selection. But as long as those virus genes are trapped in a human DNA strand the only way for them to propagate is through people, and the moment they escaped they'd be tied to that new organism. There's nothing in human reproduction that ensures that transplanted virus strands stay functional viruses.
A gene going through a multi-species reproductive cycle sounds interesting, but I'm really skeptical it's happening. At least in humans that cross-species jump is just too difficult.
It's not just nice, it's been a major part of law in English speaking countries since King John.
"No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it." - Theodore Roosevelt
I don't put them above the law, I just use different enforcement mechanisms. When it comes to policy the law is vague enough that it's basically just a framework for people to negotiate boundaries.
If the court tells the President they don't have the authority to do X then the President stops. The fact the President didn't go to jail doesn't mean they disobey the law.
And just who is it to say a politician has broken the law? I think "In God We Trust" on the money is obviously unconstitutional but the SCOTUS disagrees, should the Secretary of the Treasury be throw in jail? Or should the President be thrown in jail if the SCOTUS rules 5-4 against one of their actions?
If you want a despotic King or a Tsar then just be honest about it instead of going on about "You live in a Democracy. If you think a politician has something wrong then it's the responsibility of you and your fellow voters to handle it".
You apparently think politicians are so horribly corrupt that throwing the bad ones in jail is the only answer. But if that's the case then they're not just going to sit back and let judges throw them in jail. They'll just corrupt the judges as well!
Your scenario will get you exactly the outcome you'll find if you look around the world at countries who jail politicians. Corrupt courts with despotic Kings and Tsars.
Right. Out of the box there are serious problems and the number increases every bugtraq perusal. Without a team dedicated to security on the server it really is as simple as running some rudimentary scans, cross-referencing CVEs and then popping an appropriate script / command procedure. That the server was likely administered remotely and definitely had no on-site 24/7 presence to monitor only makes the task easier.
This conversation feels like a handful of ACs talking to someone that does not know how infosec works let alone how attackers operate.
And what evidence do you have that Guccifer knew how to do any of those things? Just because you have the knowledge so it's easy for you doesn't mean he could do the same. (You're also assuming they never actually installed any updates)
Kinda sad for a tech site for someone to put the word pentesting in quotes and call it vague. Welcome to IT quantaman. This is how security is broken on systems incompetently ran from someone's basement.
I put it in quotes because the poster didn't know what the frack they were talking about. They conflated hacking Blumenthal's account with hacking Clinton, like logging into Blumenthal's webmail meant Guccifer had already partially compromised Clinton's server.
Getting Blumenthal's email basically told him that Clinton's server existed, I see no reason to assume he even knew how to use the administration tools he supposedly may have hacked.
It's more than possible that Clinton's sever was hacked by some foreign government, but if Guccifer had done so we already would have seen the emails along with the gloats about what an awesome hacker he is.
i won't believe our justice system holds any actual justice until these individuals are arrested and taken to court for wilful violation of their oaths of office and for violating the 4th amendment rights of 300 million US citizens (and the civil rights of innocent people all around the world):
James Clapper
Dianne Feinstein
Keith Alexander
Mike Rogers
George W Bush
Barack Obama
There are probably others too, but at least those people. It shouldn't be a witch-hunt. They deserve the presumption of innocence, due process, and to be tried by a jury of their peers the same as anyone does. Still, there is plenty of reasonable cause for them to stand trial.
If we are not willing to do this, then our society has devolved into "laws for thee but not for me". If that's what we want, then fine, but let's make it official, and write it into our legal system that high ranking party officials are considered to be above the law. Let's pass a new constitutional amendment to that effect: we no longer want government officials to be subject to the law. And let's repeal the 4th, which we can do with a 2/3 majority of states voting for that. It would at least be honest.
I sympathize, but I think it's a terrible idea.
Western Democracy has a norm that politicians carrying out their duties are restrained by the courts and judged by the ballot box, with the exception of things like corruption they don't go to prison for carrying out their jobs, even if they did things that were illegal.
The idea of accountability though criminal law sounds nice, but then Democrats think Cheney should be in jail for ordering torture, Republicans think Obama should be in jail for executive orders, and the political dialogue becomes that much more dysfunctional as everyone starts claiming the judiciary should throw their opponents in jail (as if it isn't politicized enough already).
You live in a Democracy. If you think a politician has something wrong then it's the responsibility of you and your fellow voters to handle it.
We don't have to listen to experts to see the reality here, even if it's a reality you don't want to admit exists.
The third world, even after 25+ years of globalization, is still a total shithole.
It's absolutely shocking that 25 years of globalization hasn't brought the entire 3rd world up to the same level as the first world!
That's why we continue to see people from these areas try to get into developed nations, even when these developed nations are a shell of what they once were, before globalization ruined them.
No, it's because being wealthier, some of them now have the money and education to relocate.
Just look at all of the illegal aliens who try to cross the Mediterranean each day, risking their lives. They wouldn't be doing this if the places they were coming from were nice places to live!
Yeah, totally globalization, I mean it's not like a psychotic death cult just took over part of Syria.
Essentially all of Africa is an awful place to live. Nearly all of the Middle East is an awful place to live. Much of India is an awful place to live. Much of Mexico, Central America and even South America are awful places to live.
And much of them are decent places to live, not as nice as the first world but a hell of a lot better than they were 25 years ago.
The only exception may be China. We're actually seeing some small degree of success there, but despite its large population it's still quite proportionally small.
Yeah, taking 600 million people out of poverty is "proportionally small".
Not listening to experts has left you ignorant of reality.
It's mostly anecdotal at this point but there already seems to be a lot of buyers remorse. Thoughts on the possibility they'll have a follow-up "are you really sure?" referendum or at least an election where one of the parties campaigns on ignoring the result.
The reason it keeps happening is that when it happens, the CEO (who, incidentally, decided that security was an expense to be minimized) merely says "Oops, sorry." and then there are no consequences.
I think that's it. It's not that companies don't care about security, it's just that they can't really afford to care that much. Good security doesn't make them any money and bad security doesn't cost that much, in a world of finite resources the things with poor ROI are the ones that get neglected.
So gaining unauthorized access to a system by the path of least resistance doesn't count all of a sudden?
Whether you call guessing password reset questions "hacking" or not doesn't matter, what he did was fundamentally social engineering and demonstrates none of the level of technical competence he'd require to hack Clinton's server.
Why go through a bunch of Mission: Impossible vent crawling bullshit when they leave the front door wide open and the cameras off?
Fine, he didn't 'hack' the server. But he still likely gained unauthorized access. And you look like an idiot.
Why do you think he gained access? Because he said he did? Then why didn't he brag about it at the time and demonstrate proof like he did for every other hack he did?
You're putting a lot of faith in the vague unsubstantiated word of an imprisoned social engineer.
The 'hacker' could be a charlatan who got lucky. Or, maybe not.
Imagine you are a world class burglar. You approach the target and find that they have left a key under the door mat, with the security system password written on the key chain that is attached. Easy entry. You could have picked the locks and used gymnastic flips to jump through the laser alarm system. But there was no need. The target was obviously a chump. It doesn't mean you aren't at the top of your game.
Imagine you're walking around a city and the cops just caught a pickpocket.
The pickpocket shouts, "Aha! You know I also broke into the Art Gallery last week! I bypassed their security system and took all the paintings off the wall! But didn't like any so I put them back and left."
Now, the pickpocket could be telling the truth, that he knows how to bypass security systems and steal valuable art, but instead pays his bills with the proceeds of picking pockets.
He could be telling the truth, but I'm giving his story about as much credibility as Guccifer's.
What's the defense for starting a civil war in Syria against all recommendations of the Department of Defense that directly aided ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups, killed 400k people, displaced millions of migrants, and then taking at least $10 million in donations from the Saudis who were the only ones to gain from the whole ordeal?
You sure we're talking about the same Syria? I don't recall the US starting any civil wars there. Iran and Russia have been helping Assad while Turkey was actually giving some help to ISIS, but the US has generally been on the sidelines.
It's really embarrassing who we have running for President. Neither one is worthy or skilled or trustworthy to hold the office. Has it really come down to cheats, liars, and ever other derogatory trait that we have. I hope a bunch of stuff totally kills both Clinton and Trump's hopes for President. Let's have a write in campaign and vote for people with some sense of moderate views that might actually believe in them too.
If you want to say Clinton isn't trustworthy that's fine, I think it's BS but it's your opinion.
But not skilled enough???
She's widely acknowledged to be a ridiculous policy wonk, she served 8 years as a senator, 4 years as secretary of state, 20 years as a politically involved first lady (first of Arkansas then the US), and she had a successful law career.
What else do you want for a candidate to be considered "skilled"?
"Lazar said he did extensive research on the web and then guessed Blumenthal’s security question. Once inside Blumenthal's account, Lazar said he saw dozens of messages from the Clinton email address."
He did not get admin access.
That he got into Blumenthal's email account, and read emails to/from Clinton in Blumenthal's account, is a well established fact.
This is about the completely separate claim he hacked into Clinton's emails/server specifically (he was quite vague but seemed to describe seeing admin level stuff).
He got access to an account and leapfrogged from there. Pentesting 101 material. Access is access no matter how it was done. Leave the leetspeak and elitism back in the 90s.
I find "leapfrogged" and "pentesting" is a bit vague.
Hacking a sever involves a hell of a lot more than getting an email from that server and then running a port scanner.