I'm under the impression that a lot of earopean members are already using intel from prism and in exchange the USA gets access to the network.
The may be the first impression, but nothing is that simple. As everything is under the veil of secrecy (which is now open with the leaks), those using the information or ordering the use of information had most likely no idea how this information was obtained. They had probably as little idea on how the information they exchanged in return was acquired as well.
Its possible that they were in position where they could have known, but secret information is not release on a "per you might want to know this basis", but on a "need to know basis". That means that the person ordering the exchange or use of information, even if he has the correct security clearances, won't have a clue how the information is acquired unless that person specifically asks for it. And then the person asking would probably get obfuscated details not giving any useful info, unless again the right questions are asked. In the end, it's easier not to ask and act with the eyes closed.
And don't even think about asking how the information from another intelligence service was obtained.
This is a very complex synergy between intelligence organization and deciders. The intelligence organization do what they do probably not even because they are asked to, but because they feel they need to. On the other side, the people receiving the intelligence are happy with what they get and they probably never asked for anything specific or for the use of any specific source and might keep their eyes closed further under the thought "they have probably done the thing they do the right way".
This presumption goes through all levels up and up to the exchanges between intelligence organization. Its quite naive I would say.
And its not really a defensible attitude when the information you have for you can't possibly be acquired legally.
The only shocking thing is that they also listen in on political and businesss conversations.
Schocking, put predictable. Once you have broken the most basic laws and conventions, why stop at "terrorist"? You're already over the line. You've been over the line on a regular basis and you know the mean are not justifiable by the needs every time you cross this line.
It's like being shocked after learning that a hit man that killed dozens of Russians for the Italians had killed a police office for the Italian. Suddenly its an outrage and something has to be done. Its shocking.... but it's just another step of over that same line.
...about all this is that means we're farther from putting a man on the moon than we were the day I was born.
You are totally correct and somewhat wrong at the same time.
To put a man on the Moon, the first step is to wish to put a man on the Moon and to actually try to put a man on the Moon. In other words, those who decide how much money is put in which envelope must want to put a man on the moon. Otherwise it will never happen. As no deciding party actually wants that or sets that as a priority, for whatever reason, you are totally correct in saying we are further away from putting a man on the moon than sometimes back in the past, where this wish was actually share among many deciding parties.
But I believe you wanted to hint at a technological limit, but it is not case; that the technology was there in the past to do it, but was lost it and that we are far from having this technology again. That might be correct, in light of the first part of my post, but has nothing to do with the state of technology or mankind technological capabilities. It’s simply lack of resources in that envelope. Dedicate the same kind of budget in Lunar and space exploration today as it was in the ’50 and ’60, we could get there in the blink of an eye so to say. The technology is there and the design and development of means to reach the moon could be done within a few years without any problem.
Another problem is the weight of the administrative machines behind space programs. I fight my way through this very same machine in my every day professional life, and I can assure you that with the state of administration as it is now, you get nowhere near the moon, even in 20 years. But it wasn’t much different in the ’60. This issue is also in the hands of the people deciding where the money. I can assure you, the day a deciding leader tells a space program administration they’ll get 134 billion$ to put people on the moon ASAP, you’ll see the quickest administrative reform of a space program. Ever.
In tl;dr form. Technology is there. Capability can be there fast. What is missing is will and need (sold at the right persons).
That they used 3D printing device, is hardly interesting news. That’s just more 3D printing hype. What I find fascinating with this story, is that card skimming at ATM still works, today, in 2013.
It’s clearly a failure to implement the most basic security and authentication features, which are widely available today. How can it be that, today, one can still do any kind of transaction with only a card number and a pin – if a pin is needed at all (eg. For online transactions).
They (the banks and/or credit card companies) try a lot of fancy things like nice holograms on ATM machines or abstruse authentication methods that fail to understand that a simple password is about as safe as the card number itself. This PIN skimming thing is the proof of that.
It’s slowly getting better, with unique number generators for validation or unique numbers sent through SMS. But I hardly believe these solutions are optimal for the users. Perhaps this explains why their implementation is so amazing slow – although I believe it still better to have those as none at all.
Back then many of us were naive enough to believe the U.S. propaganda....
Back then? I believe many are still (and will always be) naive enough to believe the propaganda. It's not a US centric problem and definitely not a time dependent problem.
Thanks to sangreal66 and ark1 for their constructive and informative input. Although I'm still not wondering if this is the proper way to treat this case. Because provision allowing it exist, does not mean they are appropriate for this case.
Anyway, I believe it is somewhat irrelevant. If a country is serious about offering asylum, they might as well provide one-way travel documents to travel into that country.
You don't revoke passports. Once you arrested someone, the judge may decide to retain the travel documents to avoid that person fleeing justice. But the passport is not revoked, it is confiscated. And that is done once the person is arrested, not while the person is sitting somewhere in the world in a transit area.
Revoking a passport is quite extreme and I have never heard of such action. It is not the usual way to pursue international criminals. Thus it is a different treatment.
Well, if the US laws do not apply there, maybe the laws from the country represented by the embassies apply there? And what if it is illegal under these laws? Have you thought about this for a second?
And obviously, the surveillance was performed outside of the embassies walls as well. Stop trying to pat yourself on the shoulder and find excuses. Any way you look at it, illegal or unconstitutional acts have been made.
And give me a break with your sanctioned under national security. Some of it may be, but a lot is business protectionism. And that's whats so shocking about this. If only it were limited to national security, at least it would have been explainable and, to some extent, excusable.
Having the data request protocol, and assuming the diffrent companies are too lazy to secure it properly, one could, hypothetically, run havok in the NSA/FBI data centers.
[...] WITHOUT SPEAKING PUBLICLY OR RELEASING HIS NAME[...]
Like that would have kept him safe. They would have eventually found the source out, and I don't want to know what would have happened to the guy then. Maybe kidnapped and flown him to Egypt over Germany for Interrogation. We can't tell what would have happened, but they would have found him. He is playing the only card he has: convince the people that what he did was correct, both morally and legally. That, you cannot achieve in a case like this under a hidden veil.
Now he has a door wide open for political asylum in Hong Kong, which has very strong asylum law - law preceding all extradition law. Smart move I tell you.
And don't think for a second that he's alone behind these actions. I'm quite sure he's having help and guidance from the Guardian and co.
he's still an idiot with internet-troll-dork level logic...
The guys is no idiots. He made pretty smart moves, like finding refuge in Hong Kong and right after letting out the proof the NSA and co. doing hacking actions / spying in China. Just that move alone shows it's well thought out. Quite clever.
When you sit in the chair, you'll never be the one you wanted to be while looking up to it. And it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
There's a simple reason while politician change and change their speech once they get (re)elected. It's only then that they are faced with reality, whereas all the speeches before are totally disconnected from it. In the end, it's the same person, but facing different realities. I don't excuse them really for it... it rather have candidates saying the things how they are, but that won't get them elected.
By "for your own use", do you mean only shoot yourself with it?
Actually I know very well what you mean and what is meant it the federal provisions, but it's a pretty perverse implementation of gun restriction law when you think about it for a second.
Such a news is by most readers, even at slashdot, frowned upon as its impact and relevance is little understood. I doubt it has anything to do with some misconception on robotics, which I frankly, never really noticed as you mention.
NASA's PR crew also had in the past the bad habit of over hyping mundane or unverified news to get media attention. Crying wolf didn't make their announcements popular among educated readers.
Most commercial aircraft cannot fly high enough to fly above CB clouds, especially in the tropics where the are at their most intense and where the tropopause is higher. The only avoidance route is to fly around them. Simply put, thunderstorms are too high to fly over them. On the other hand, normal rain showers can be easily avoided by flying over them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm under the impression that a lot of earopean members are already using intel from prism and in exchange the USA gets access to the network.
The may be the first impression, but nothing is that simple. As everything is under the veil of secrecy (which is now open with the leaks), those using the information or ordering the use of information had most likely no idea how this information was obtained. They had probably as little idea on how the information they exchanged in return was acquired as well.
Its possible that they were in position where they could have known, but secret information is not release on a "per you might want to know this basis", but on a "need to know basis". That means that the person ordering the exchange or use of information, even if he has the correct security clearances, won't have a clue how the information is acquired unless that person specifically asks for it. And then the person asking would probably get obfuscated details not giving any useful info, unless again the right questions are asked. In the end, it's easier not to ask and act with the eyes closed.
And don't even think about asking how the information from another intelligence service was obtained.
This is a very complex synergy between intelligence organization and deciders. The intelligence organization do what they do probably not even because they are asked to, but because they feel they need to. On the other side, the people receiving the intelligence are happy with what they get and they probably never asked for anything specific or for the use of any specific source and might keep their eyes closed further under the thought "they have probably done the thing they do the right way".
This presumption goes through all levels up and up to the exchanges between intelligence organization. Its quite naive I would say.
And its not really a defensible attitude when the information you have for you can't possibly be acquired legally.
The only shocking thing is that they also listen in on political and businesss conversations.
Schocking, put predictable. Once you have broken the most basic laws and conventions, why stop at "terrorist"? You're already over the line. You've been over the line on a regular basis and you know the mean are not justifiable by the needs every time you cross this line.
It's like being shocked after learning that a hit man that killed dozens of Russians for the Italians had killed a police office for the Italian. Suddenly its an outrage and something has to be done. Its shocking.... but it's just another step of over that same line.
...about all this is that means we're farther from putting a man on the moon than we were the day I was born.
You are totally correct and somewhat wrong at the same time.
To put a man on the Moon, the first step is to wish to put a man on the Moon and to actually try to put a man on the Moon. In other words, those who decide how much money is put in which envelope must want to put a man on the moon. Otherwise it will never happen. As no deciding party actually wants that or sets that as a priority, for whatever reason, you are totally correct in saying we are further away from putting a man on the moon than sometimes back in the past, where this wish was actually share among many deciding parties.
But I believe you wanted to hint at a technological limit, but it is not case; that the technology was there in the past to do it, but was lost it and that we are far from having this technology again. That might be correct, in light of the first part of my post, but has nothing to do with the state of technology or mankind technological capabilities. It’s simply lack of resources in that envelope. Dedicate the same kind of budget in Lunar and space exploration today as it was in the ’50 and ’60, we could get there in the blink of an eye so to say. The technology is there and the design and development of means to reach the moon could be done within a few years without any problem.
Another problem is the weight of the administrative machines behind space programs. I fight my way through this very same machine in my every day professional life, and I can assure you that with the state of administration as it is now, you get nowhere near the moon, even in 20 years. But it wasn’t much different in the ’60. This issue is also in the hands of the people deciding where the money. I can assure you, the day a deciding leader tells a space program administration they’ll get 134 billion$ to put people on the moon ASAP, you’ll see the quickest administrative reform of a space program. Ever.
In tl;dr form. Technology is there. Capability can be there fast. What is missing is will and need (sold at the right persons).
That they used 3D printing device, is hardly interesting news. That’s just more 3D printing hype. What I find fascinating with this story, is that card skimming at ATM still works, today, in 2013.
It’s clearly a failure to implement the most basic security and authentication features, which are widely available today. How can it be that, today, one can still do any kind of transaction with only a card number and a pin – if a pin is needed at all (eg. For online transactions).
They (the banks and/or credit card companies) try a lot of fancy things like nice holograms on ATM machines or abstruse authentication methods that fail to understand that a simple password is about as safe as the card number itself. This PIN skimming thing is the proof of that.
It’s slowly getting better, with unique number generators for validation or unique numbers sent through SMS. But I hardly believe these solutions are optimal for the users. Perhaps this explains why their implementation is so amazing slow – although I believe it still better to have those as none at all.
You could have said : "oh you're from that world too?".
Everywhere in the world where I lived and worked, it was more of the same.
Back then many of us were naive enough to believe the U.S. propaganda....
Back then?
I believe many are still (and will always be) naive enough to believe the propaganda. It's not a US centric problem and definitely not a time dependent problem.
And it has little to do with being naive or not.
Or they crawl under piles of VPN requests from GEMA-pist off germans.
I stand corrected, but not thanks to your help.
Thanks to sangreal66 and ark1 for their constructive and informative input. Although I'm still not wondering if this is the proper way to treat this case. Because provision allowing it exist, does not mean they are appropriate for this case.
Anyway, I believe it is somewhat irrelevant. If a country is serious about offering asylum, they might as well provide one-way travel documents to travel into that country.
At least, he's not an Anonymous Coward, making such bold statements.
You don't revoke passports. Once you arrested someone, the judge may decide to retain the travel documents to avoid that person fleeing justice. But the passport is not revoked, it is confiscated. And that is done once the person is arrested, not while the person is sitting somewhere in the world in a transit area.
Revoking a passport is quite extreme and I have never heard of such action. It is not the usual way to pursue international criminals. Thus it is a different treatment.
Well, if the US laws do not apply there, maybe the laws from the country represented by the embassies apply there? And what if it is illegal under these laws? Have you thought about this for a second?
And obviously, the surveillance was performed outside of the embassies walls as well.
Stop trying to pat yourself on the shoulder and find excuses. Any way you look at it, illegal or unconstitutional acts have been made.
And give me a break with your sanctioned under national security. Some of it may be, but a lot is business protectionism. And that's whats so shocking about this. If only it were limited to national security, at least it would have been explainable and, to some extent, excusable.
Even if US law doesn't apply there, it doesn't mean its a law-less territory. Then would at least the laws of the represented delegation apply.
Having the data request protocol, and assuming the diffrent companies are too lazy to secure it properly, one could, hypothetically, run havok in the NSA/FBI data centers.
No, it is not. But I think that the message is clear, regardless how bad my english can be.
Or, maybe, it's not the 70' anymore...
[...] WITHOUT SPEAKING PUBLICLY OR RELEASING HIS NAME[...]
Like that would have kept him safe. They would have eventually found the source out, and I don't want to know what would have happened to the guy then. Maybe kidnapped and flown him to Egypt over Germany for Interrogation. We can't tell what would have happened, but they would have found him. He is playing the only card he has: convince the people that what he did was correct, both morally and legally. That, you cannot achieve in a case like this under a hidden veil.
Now he has a door wide open for political asylum in Hong Kong, which has very strong asylum law - law preceding all extradition law. Smart move I tell you.
And don't think for a second that he's alone behind these actions. I'm quite sure he's having help and guidance from the Guardian and co.
he's still an idiot with internet-troll-dork level logic...
The guys is no idiots. He made pretty smart moves, like finding refuge in Hong Kong and right after letting out the proof the NSA and co. doing hacking actions / spying in China. Just that move alone shows it's well thought out. Quite clever.
When you sit in the chair, you'll never be the one you wanted to be while looking up to it. And it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
There's a simple reason while politician change and change their speech once they get (re)elected. It's only then that they are faced with reality, whereas all the speeches before are totally disconnected from it. In the end, it's the same person, but facing different realities. I don't excuse them really for it... it rather have candidates saying the things how they are, but that won't get them elected.
By "for your own use", do you mean only shoot yourself with it?
Actually I know very well what you mean and what is meant it the federal provisions, but it's a pretty perverse implementation of gun restriction law when you think about it for a second.
Such a news is by most readers, even at slashdot, frowned upon as its impact and relevance is little understood. I doubt it has anything to do with some misconception on robotics, which I frankly, never really noticed as you mention.
NASA's PR crew also had in the past the bad habit of over hyping mundane or unverified news to get media attention. Crying wolf didn't make their announcements popular among educated readers.
NASA doens't launch spy satellite. The air force does, and that mostly from Vandenberg AFB.
I'm pretty sure those servers and power supplies were valuable, regardless of the data they host (which is also of value to someone).
By "Canadians", I think you mean the conservatives Canadians.
This is a typical (if not standard) map projection. What would you suggest? East Up? Centered on?
Yet, metaphorical use of words is not always appropriate; despite what journalists want you to think with their catchy headlines.
Most commercial aircraft cannot fly high enough to fly above CB clouds, especially in the tropics where the are at their most intense and where the tropopause is higher. The only avoidance route is to fly around them. Simply put, thunderstorms are too high to fly over them. On the other hand, normal rain showers can be easily avoided by flying over them.