It was more a band of very strong wind (for the UK) - the damage track is several miles wide, nothing like a tornado. Not too severe, about one tree down every 2 miles (rough calculation from seeing about a dozen trees down on a 25 mile local trip). We lost 2, both ripped off about 10 feet from the ground (in from the edge of a small wood - apparently others have seen a similar pattern).
Notice how this is a curb on the *use* of the collected data - not on collecting it in the first place.
In other words, politicians have realised how much power this level of information can give them - and that is why control of it is far too important to be left in the hands of the NSA.
So what we have is just a power struggle over the strings of control - and not over the real issue of overbearing intrusion into the private lives of the people of this planet.
No, not terrorists or drug smugglers or other ne'er do wells.
The target market is politicians, sheriffs departments, lobbyists, corporations, bankers and sundry others who worry about their dodgy dealings coming to light.
A quick synopsis (so may contain stuff to quibble over) but the meat appears to be the action list (read the original document - link in article - for the rest):
Action 2: Set up an overall agreement ensuring 'proper redress mechanisms' for EU citizens where data is passed to the US for law enforcement purposes.
Action 3: Suspend 'safe harbour' (covering personal data) until the US comply with 'EU highest standards'
Action 4: Suspend the 'TFTP' (Terrorist Finance Tracking Package) until a) Action 2 complete b) the EU have looked into it
Action 5: Worth quoting in full: "Protect the rule of law and the fundamental rights of EU citizens, with a particular focus on threads to the freedom of the press and professional confidentiality (including lawyer-client relationships) as well as enhanced protection for whistleblowers".
Action 6: Develop a european strategy for IT independence (that'll send cold shivers down the spine of certain US companies).
Action 7: Develop the EU as a reference player for a democratic and neutral governance of the internet (my translation: currently it's a US party, we want in on that).
Could it be they are now going to (as often suggested on here) deliberately leak something pretty serious (possibly about some past actual harm, with a nicely polished backstory) and attribute it to Snowden? Effectively, by saying "we don't know what he's got" , it leaves the door open for them to attribute *anything they like* to him.
Absolutely; for large, fast (and short-term) storage we use servers with 6 fast disks in RAID 0, and when that's not enough we use big RAM disks. SSD's have been played with (without any problems) but don't seem to add anything to our particular (admittedly unusual) set-up.
Let's face it, linux isn't easy to hack now; the corporates are winning (complexity is their friend, if it was simple no-one would need a support contract). Why release a simple system, when you can bloat it with a zillion tweaks of dubious value and then charge money to keep the whole mess working?
Mind you, it's a strategy that's worked well for Microsoft (well, up till now anyway).
Translates as "We are not doing it at this precise instant" (as widely reported, it seems very likely they did so in the past - and, no doubt, will do so again in the future, if they think they won't get caught).
So true; Glenn Greenwald immediately outed a disputed business deal in his past (a hotel TV business, which had a hand in providing porn for corporate man) because he knew otherwise it would be used against him. The rest of them must be frighteningly clean-living (or figure this story is more important than their past indiscretions).
They almost certainly already knew anything a random sys admin could download (despite my respect for them, I still imagine more of them can be bought than risk their lives blowing whistles).
It was 2005 when it became clear to me that the terrorism legislation would be mis-used; specifically when the UK's Labour party used the Terrorism Act to detain an 82-year old pensioner for shouting "Nonsense" during a speech by the (then) Home Secretary.
n.b. the link is to the apology - the original story seems to have disappeared.
Plenty of people knew about Madoff; it seems their decisions were whether to take the silver dollar or just give it a miss (admittedly some people did ring alarm bells).
I'd guess you're right on the money there. Could be they didn't make the right sort of payoff (sorry, "lobbying contribution") or they tried to kick back a weeny bit because they know their customers seriously dislike the idea of spooks reading their privileged, private communication (whether it be emails, metadata, or searches).
Although I think Google have become less idealistic over recent years (well, that's Wall St for you) they're still way off the bottom of the barrel. And by encrypting more of their traffic, they're aiming to force the TLA's to go through legal, open, accountable channels. And said TLA's are hardly going to stand for any of that "accountability" nonsense, so....
Slashdot Mirror
This would be the same Eric Schmidt who said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."?
And now we're expected to believe him, when he says he's keeping us safe from letting anyone know what we're doing?
He killed a lot of trust with the original comment.
He just killed a whole lot more.
Which is great! It gives people with a clue a competitive advantage.
It was more a band of very strong wind (for the UK) - the damage track is several miles wide, nothing like a tornado. Not too severe, about one tree down every 2 miles (rough calculation from seeing about a dozen trees down on a 25 mile local trip). We lost 2, both ripped off about 10 feet from the ground (in from the edge of a small wood - apparently others have seen a similar pattern).
Notice how this is a curb on the *use* of the collected data - not on collecting it in the first place.
In other words, politicians have realised how much power this level of information can give them - and that is why control of it is far too important to be left in the hands of the NSA.
So what we have is just a power struggle over the strings of control - and not over the real issue of overbearing intrusion into the private lives of the people of this planet.
No, not terrorists or drug smugglers or other ne'er do wells.
The target market is politicians, sheriffs departments, lobbyists, corporations, bankers and sundry others who worry about their dodgy dealings coming to light.
It'll be like aviation - the makers of the craft in question will pay lots of mney to lawyers to put the crash down to "pilot error".
Aside from which, let's see, law enforcement will want a 'kill switch' and every politician will want a 'Zil lane' button.
A quick synopsis (so may contain stuff to quibble over) but the meat appears to be the action list (read the original document - link in article - for the rest):
Action 1: Adopt the data protection package
Action 2: Set up an overall agreement ensuring 'proper redress mechanisms' for EU citizens where data is passed to the US for law enforcement purposes.
Action 3: Suspend 'safe harbour' (covering personal data) until the US comply with 'EU highest standards'
Action 4: Suspend the 'TFTP' (Terrorist Finance Tracking Package) until a) Action 2 complete b) the EU have looked into it
Action 5: Worth quoting in full: "Protect the rule of law and the fundamental rights of EU citizens, with a particular focus on threads to the freedom of the press and professional confidentiality (including lawyer-client relationships) as well as enhanced protection for whistleblowers".
Action 6: Develop a european strategy for IT independence (that'll send cold shivers down the spine of certain US companies).
Action 7: Develop the EU as a reference player for a democratic and neutral governance of the internet (my translation: currently it's a US party, we want in on that).
Haven't read the report, have we?
Could it be they are now going to (as often suggested on here) deliberately leak something pretty serious (possibly about some past actual harm, with a nicely polished backstory) and attribute it to Snowden? Effectively, by saying "we don't know what he's got" , it leaves the door open for them to attribute *anything they like* to him.
Absolutely; for large, fast (and short-term) storage we use servers with 6 fast disks in RAID 0, and when that's not enough we use big RAM disks. SSD's have been played with (without any problems) but don't seem to add anything to our particular (admittedly unusual) set-up.
Oh, I see, a ramping-up of press releases about 'exploits' against XP prior to the cut-off date.
Didn't see that coming.
One of the best comments, deserves to be modded up.
Let's face it, linux isn't easy to hack now; the corporates are winning (complexity is their friend, if it was simple no-one would need a support contract). Why release a simple system, when you can bloat it with a zillion tweaks of dubious value and then charge money to keep the whole mess working?
Mind you, it's a strategy that's worked well for Microsoft (well, up till now anyway).
Far too coherent to be Ballmer.
Outlived his usefulness, and being allowed to hang himself in the court of public opinion.
Check the like vs dislike counts on youtube (157 vs 9,993 at the time of writing).
Look at the tense of the language.
Translates as "We are not doing it at this precise instant" (as widely reported, it seems very likely they did so in the past - and, no doubt, will do so again in the future, if they think they won't get caught).
So true; Glenn Greenwald immediately outed a disputed business deal in his past (a hotel TV business, which had a hand in providing porn for corporate man) because he knew otherwise it would be used against him. The rest of them must be frighteningly clean-living (or figure this story is more important than their past indiscretions).
They almost certainly already knew anything a random sys admin could download (despite my respect for them, I still imagine more of them can be bought than risk their lives blowing whistles).
It was 2005 when it became clear to me that the terrorism legislation would be mis-used; specifically when the UK's Labour party used the Terrorism Act to detain an 82-year old pensioner for shouting "Nonsense" during a speech by the (then) Home Secretary.
n.b. the link is to the apology - the original story seems to have disappeared.
Plenty of people knew about Madoff; it seems their decisions were whether to take the silver dollar or just give it a miss (admittedly some people did ring alarm bells).
Yes, but these sites aren't confidential (e.g. news.ycombinator.com) - it seems mad they don't support plain HTTP.
Oddly enough I was surfing the net using Netscape on a 486 tonight.
Interesting that a lot of sites now give the message "Cannot communicate because Netscape and the site cannot agree on an encryption algorithm".
Thanks NSA, you've finally broken 20 years of backward compatiibility.
Watch what they do, not what they say (e.g. Tony Blair).
I'd guess you're right on the money there. Could be they didn't make the right sort of payoff (sorry, "lobbying contribution") or they tried to kick back a weeny bit because they know their customers seriously dislike the idea of spooks reading their privileged, private communication (whether it be emails, metadata, or searches).
Although I think Google have become less idealistic over recent years (well, that's Wall St for you) they're still way off the bottom of the barrel. And by encrypting more of their traffic, they're aiming to force the TLA's to go through legal, open, accountable channels. And said TLA's are hardly going to stand for any of that "accountability" nonsense, so....
Indeed; all that's needed to disable Ctrl-Alt-backspace is "Option Dontzap true" in XF86Config.