In other words the Banks are using tax payer money to pay off their debts. Lovely.
Banks are required, by law, to maintain a minimum ratio of capital vs risk-weighted assets.
Capital is not just money in the bank. Capital is also shareholder equity, reserves, general provisions (aka losses), and term debt (and other things). Many banks are currently falling below the required capital ratios because of the housing loses, erosion of asset values, and the slowing of the economy.
Legally, many banks cannot loan money at this time.
I am not trying to say this covers all laws in all jurisdictions. Why do you keep trying to claim I am?
I quote Wikipedia because it provides a standard meaning for the word and concept of libel, which many people do not understand. I am not trying to claim that this concept covers all jurisdictions (see where I said many jurisdictions have variations). I understand that "libel" in one county might mean sleeping upside down, while in another county it might mean kicking a dog. However, for most jurisdictions you are going to find a basic variation of the standard concept of libel as stated on Wikipedia.
So lets see what Massachusetts defines libel as, shall we?
I could not locate the exact Mass. law on the net, but here is an article from the Mass. Bar Association Journalists' Handbook. Seems like a reputable source:
Libel: In order to be libelous, a statement must be: 1) False, 2) Defamatory, 3) published with some degree of fault, 4) Damaging to its subject.
Seems to be along the same lines as what Wikipedia claims...
Of course, the devil is in the details and the tiny variations of the law between jurisdictions.
Now that we have a trusted (but not verified) definition for libel in the state of Mass., lets get back to the subject. I originally posted that it might be a case of public disclosure of private information. However, as others pointed out, reasons for firing are not necessarily private information. After looking at the article again, I still cannot determine if it should be a libel case.
"Sibbison - who says her client, Noonan, was a "sloppy record keeper" but not a thief - said the ruling lets him sue a company that "violated its own policies on employee privacy" through the mass e-mail."
"...had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass e-mail before, and jurors might conclude he "singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him,"
One quote states that Staples violated its own employee privacy policies, the next argues that it was malicious.
It could be libel if the email implied anything that could be false. If it implied that he stole intentionally when in fact all he did was keep poor records, for example.
Absolutely, many jurisdictions have variations. My point was that it appears to be more about disclosing private information than about actual libel. Though as another poster stated, if they fired him for incorrect expense reports, but then the email implied he intentionally filed incorrect expense reports (aka theft), then it might actually be a libel case.
Interesting. I suppose the CIA has, at times in the cold war, played hopscotch with that defining line.
Much like the NSA, the CIA is composed of both civilian and military personnel, thus allowing the line to be walked. I am not 100% sure of this, but I believe the CIA is granted additional authorities for some of its work.
I'm not sure I understand the role of cyber attacks against military infrastructure. Attacks on military infrastructure would seem to fall into the category of "war". If so, it implies a state of affairs in what the authors refer to as "kinetic" warfare.
Many top brass follow this belief: Why engage in cyber attack when I can just drop a bomb on it? The answer is actually many simple reasons. If we can disable a computer network instead of destroy it, we can retrieve valuable information from it later. We also will not need to rebuild it after the war, thus lowering the cost and decreasing the time required to stand up a new functional native government. We could also use some of the disabled resources during the war (once we have physical control of them) instead of shipping in our own equipment. Denial of service also has some potential strategic advantages over destruction. If we deny the use of certain networks, the enemy will not be 100% sure that we are engaging them. There will be a period of time with some doubt about what happened to the networks and that period of time can be used to great advantage. If you just destroy the networks, the enemy will undoubtedly go into immediate high alert.
Meanwhile, the civilian infrastructure question (e.g. internet) is interesting
In most countries, the civilian infrastructure and the military infrastructure are the same or overlap in so many places as to be almost the same. Disabling the civilian "internet" may also disable military networks.
what the hell are we trying to achieve?
This is a key point. I think many top military brass are unsure about what to do with cyber warfare. They don't know what the goal is and therefore cannot adequately define the scope and mission. They don't know the capabilities, or the capabilities change too fast for it to succeed in a traditional military system.
"In accordance with Department of Defense Directive 5100.20, dated December 23, 1971, the Director of the NSA and Chief of the CSS must always be a commissioned officer of the military services with at least the grade of a three star lieutenant general or vice admiral during the period of his incumbency."
That requires some explaining. Yes, the NSA is under the command of the Department of Defense, through the Director of NSA being a military officer. Employees of the NSA are considered civilians and not part of the Armed Forces, thus granted Title 50 (surveillance). There are Military personnel assigned to the NSA, working with the civilians. These Military have Title 10 (Armed Forces). Contractors are civilians with neither Title 10 nor Title 50.
There may be some exceptions to this for special circumstances with direct congressional approval or from way up the chain of command (aka the President).
Terms of a person's firing are almost always non-public. A company as large as Staples can't publish to ALL it's employees that they fired Bob over $5.00 misappropriated on an expense report. That's malicious. It's appropriate to say we will (and have) terminated over expense reports being wrong without giving the offenders name.
I can't think of any company I've worked at that's attached names to memos like that. Even companies that actually call the cops on somebody don't typically inform the employees of the person's name, or particular details of the infraction beyond the company "rule book" for just this reason.
Added bold for emphasis. This whole thing seems like it should be a "public disclosure of private facts" suit, not a Libel suit.
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.
"Unlike libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."
so why would cyber security go under the military, as opposed to the NSA, for example?
Largely because of the United States Code...
U.S.C. Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 3 (I think): Armed Forces, General Powers and Functions. Title 10 grants the Armed Forces the authority to commit potential "acts of war". In the cyber world, this means the ability to exploit, destory, degrade, or otherwise attack a foreign computer.
U.S.C. Title 50, Chapter 36: Electronic Surveillance. Title 50 grants the Intelligence Agencies the authority to collect electronic surveillance. It does not grant the direct authority to exploit a foreign computer.
Obviously, at some point, there is a need for both of these authorities during cyber warfare, or even general surveillance. Much like the government has separation of powers, the Intelligence Communities have separation of powers. And it is a good thing.
I'm not convinced by the point in the article regarding the NSA. On the contrary, it almost seems like the NSA model is ideal: the military requires operational folks who rotate through the doors of the NSA to get schooled and then go out into the field. Meanwhile, I would think, the NSA is staffed by career civilian professionals who can not only devote the necessary strategic attention to cyber warfare, but can also train the military as necessary. The article seems to address an issue where military staff is used to augment an understaffed NSA. Since apparently military staff is rotated out too frequently, it is not an effective use of resources. From this description, at least, this problem seems minor in comparison to the issues of shoe horning geeks into the military.
The model is good in theory. In practice it runs into several problems (though sometimes it does work well):
1) Military personnel are (generally) not promoted according to technical achievements. This leads to frustration when Military peers are recognized and promoted ahead of you. This also leads to frustration while working side-by-side with civilians who ARE recognized for technical achievements.
2) The pay difference. Working side by side with civilians who are paid 2x, 3x, and sometimes 4x what Military personnel can make. This also leads to frustration. At least the Military Medical personnel are paid extra for their skills.
3) There is very little visibility into achievements in the Intelligence Community. Everything is held very close to the vest and not discussed. Military reviews for promotion are often performed by those without a clearance, and even if they have a clearance, they don't have the access to read about most special programs. Your promotion paperwork will often have a generic, almost unrelated statement regarding special access achievements. This leads to frustration when passed over for promotion. You never know, did the reviewer *really* know what I accomplished?
4) After a tour through NSA, Military personnel are often deployed to the field. While there are some technical positions in the field, most are non-technical. Even if you are lucky and get a second non-field assignment, you will not be employing anything you just learned. You will likely be put in charge of a web page, or maintenance, or some database. General military commanders do not have a need for serious cyber warfare expertise.
Combine it all and you can see why this model makes if very difficult for the Military to retain their cyber personnel. They need to change things if they want to encourage retention. Of course some people stay anyway, there are always exceptions.
Creating a separate division for cyber warfare would perhaps help with these problems. An adjusted pay scale, better promotion opportunities, more peer recognition for achievements, and a continuous career in advanced technical fields.
Sorry. I'm a lawyer and you're only partly right. Passwords may not be "property" but it can still be potentially harmful to withhold them. If a plaintiff could prove harm or even better, immediate irreparable injury, a court would say give 'em up or go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.
Exactly. A court would rule and demand they be released. The proper course of action is filing a civil complaint and then letting the courts sort it out. Refusing to give out passwords is not a criminal act.
Mr. Childs agreed to release the passwords to the Mayor. He did not threaten to withhold them forever or completely refuse to give them out. He merely refused to give them out to people he did not trust. The city filed a very weak CRIMINAL complaint, based solely on three modems found in Mr. Childs office to put him in jail. The modems have been shown to be 100% legitimate, so the only remaining thing is his refusal to release passwords to people he did not trust (which is a civil complaint). He should be released from jail and counter sue. The DA should have never brought charges based solely on three modems.
1) Mr. Childs did agree to release the password to the Mayor. He refused to release them to the people who demanded them because he believed they had an agenda that might compromise the security of the system.
2) At worst, Mr. Childs is guilty of a civil violation. The city, however, used a very weak case based on three modems in Mr. Childs' office to prosecute him with criminal charges. They have held him in jail for 7 months now, based solely on this fact. The judge set the bail (after prosecutors urging) at $5 Million, well beyond anything Mr. Childs could post. These modems turned out to be 100% legitimate and used for 1) paging Mr. Childs about network errors 2) testing connectivity 3) emergency fail over to a backup site. One of the modems existed prior to Mr. Childs even being hired.
They accused him of criminal acts, they searched his house, they trashed him in the media, they illegally leaked his HR records, and they held him in jail all based on THREE MODEMS.
"A disgruntled city computer engineer has virtually commandeered San Francisco's new multi million-dollar computer network, altering it to deny access to top administrators even as he sits in jail on $5 million bail, authorities said Monday."
How, exactly, did he alter the network from jail?
"Childs created a password that granted him exclusive access to the system, authorities said. He initially gave pass codes to police, but they didn't work. When pressed, Childs refused to divulge the real code even when threatened with arrest, they said."
He was the network administrator, so he was entitled to access to the system. If the city's IT policy did not require him to document important passwords, then he has done nothing wrong. They threatened to arrest him, for what could only ever be a CIVIL infraction.
As others have discussed, the demand for the passwords came during an impromptu meeting where the people present had no business hearing the passwords. He has no responsibility to give out passwords to random people. After this ambush, he felt he could not trust the people around him and stated he would give the passwords only to the Mayor--basically the equivalent of the CEO. Again, he has done nothing wrong.
"One official with knowledge of the case said he had been disciplined on the job in recent months for poor performance and that his supervisors had tried to fire him. "They weren't able to do it - this was kind of his insurance policy," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the attempted firing was a personnel matter."
A city official revealed confidential information to the press, knowing that it was illegal to do so (hence the anonymity) and insinuating that Mr. Childs had an ulterior motive. Smells fishy.
They knew that he had done nothing wrong, and that at best they had a CIVIL complaint. They went hunting and found three modems in his office. They used that to arrest him on CRIMINAL CHARGES. After that:
"Officials also said they feared that although Childs is in jail, he may have enabled a third party to access the system by telephone or other electronic device and order the destruction of hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents. Authorities have searched Childs' home and car for a device that could be used in such an attack, but so far no such evidence has been found."
WTF? They claimed he had setup three modems and used that to Justify searching his house. On this alone they are permitted to search his home and car? What we find out 7 months later:
"One was set up to dial out to Childs' pager any time a problem popped up on the city's network. The second was a DSL modem that had been set up even before Childs was hired at DTIS, used to connect to the Internet and test access to the city's network. The third was for emergency use only, designed to connect city computers to a disaster recovery site so that the city's network could be up and running in the event of an emergency."
This is a personal vendetta by Management at the City.
If this had happened at a large corporation, do you think the Police would have agreed and searched his house? Do you think the DA would have even charged him with anything? Would the judge have set a $5 million dollar bail??
Just to emphasize, in the US from 1995 to 2007:
- the US Population increased 14% (263 Million to 301 Million)
- video game sales increased 560% (3.2 Billion to 17.9 Billion)
Yet during this same time, violent crimes committed by those under the age of 18 decreased by 50% (2169 vs 1063)
I realize this does not control for any other factors that could also account for a decrease in violence. Also, correlation... causation... yada yada.
300 Million people, 72 Million under 18 (24% *1), lets say only 24 Million of them are of age to consider (12-18) of which 97% (*2) play video games, leaving us with 23 Million teens. That means that 0.000046% of video game playing teens commit a violent crime.
That is a lower incidence rate than Bi-polar disorder and Schizophrenia. Pure conjecture here, but, perhaps there is something wrong with these teens before they even start playing video games?
Apparently, teenagers were never violent or moody before the development of video games.
Does anyone really know how many teenagers committed violence from 1900-1980ish (the period prior to violent video games)? No, because it was such a social taboo that it was not reported, was covered up, or word never traveled beyond city limits. Modern global media records every minor violent event in every town of America with more than three people.
How many teenagers took part in the World Wars and committed violence?
If you were a violent teenager in the pre-video game era, you had an outlet for your violence. War and to some extent protests.
I suppose the violent video game of Tetris caused the Menendez Brothers to kill their parents in 1989?
Bottom line, we cannot establish a trend because we don't have the data to create a trend (prior to the 80s)!
How far back can we trust the data to reliably contain all teenage violence?
FBI Report of crime statistics in 1995 *1:
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter: 21,597
1995 Offenders under 18: 2169
FBI Report of crime statistics in 2007 *2:
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter: 17,040
2007 Offenders under 18: 1063
So apparently, the video games in 1995 were more violent than the video games in 2007.
The Jewish definition of marriage has been defined for thousands of years. It has a meaning at both the church and state level, which is the problem. Many people do not like the government redefining a religious term. An overwhelming majority of anti-gay marriage voters are for a separation of the terms and the granting of equal rights, but this is not acceptable by the gay community. This makes it messy, hence the majority voting for Prop8.
P.S. I voted for Prop8, live in Bay Area, had gay teachers/classmates/friends, etc. If the government would stop using the term marriage, I would have voted for 100% equality.
The Buddhist definition of marriage has been defined for thousands of years. It is considered a personal and individual concern. It is not considered a religious duty or a sacrament ordained in heaven. Many people do not like Judaism redefining a social term. An overwhelming majority of anti-gay marriage voters are hypocrites, trying to force their beliefs on others but at the same time claiming equality for all. They drum up support for their beliefs using misleading statements like "Vote yes on prop 8 or the government will teach your second grader about gay sex" . They claim moral superiority while utilizing false, misleading advertising. This makes it messy, hence the majority voting for Prop8 feeling they were tricked into supporting it.
P.S. I voted no on Prop8, I don't live in the Bay Area, I don't have gay teachers/classmates/friends, etc. If the religious right would stop trying to claim ownership of words, I would respect them more.
Physical memory analysis is an up and coming challenge for many law enforcement agencies. How can you guarantee that a suspect's computer was not infected by some bad memory-only malware? Current tools only address the hard drive and what it contains. There has been a lot of research into physical memory analysis over the past few years:
I'm looking forward to using some tools that don't require me to keep a notebook of esoteric command lines and a usb key full of dependencies. Not to mention some report friendly output. Should be a good year!
There really was only one reason for invading Iraq. It was a *brilliant* strategic move for the US Military. It is central to a high instable region that controls a major resource that the US depends on. It effectively provides the capability for the US to project force into any middle eastern country without the previous hangups like asking permission to use foreign air-bases or to move Carrier Fleets into sensitive areas...
You better believe that the US will have a permanent base with unrestricted use of Iraqi Air Space.
They do have decent calibration schemes. My Denon AVR3805 comes with a mic that you plug in and place at the listening position and then run the auto-calibration test. Toss in some Paradigm speakers and an SACD player and you have some *very* high quality audio. My previous receiver required me to manually take SPL measurements and input them for calibration. The Denon auto detects everything, including speaker locations. Soooo handy.
8 Sep 2004: Indymedianates publishes an article with photos of at least 1 (maybe 2?) undercover swiss police. Google cache of another site with pictures here.
Translation of original Indymedia post.
Unknown date: FBI asks the post to be removed, but admitted no laws were violated:
"The FBI agents told me that they were not concerned with the photos, but with the identifying information. There never was any such identifying information, and even if there was, it would likely be protected by the first amendment if it was obtained legally. (There was a recent case here in Washington that you may be familiar with on this very issue). But, even assuming it is illegal to post identifying information (which it is not), there WAS NO SUCH info. The FBI agents freely admitted to me that individuals have a right to take photographs of agents in public places and post those photos on the internet."
7 Oct 2004: Two Indymedia servers hosted by Rackspace (a US Company) but physically located in LONDON are taken. FBI agents are present at the seizure. No information is given other than the servers were taken. The order was issued to Rackspace (not Indymedia) and Rackspace was apparently barred from talking about it.
8 Oct 2004: Rackspace publishes that they turned over the servers in response to an order under MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty).
8 Oct 2004: The AFP states that the request for the seizure originated with the Italian and Switzerland governments.
Doxygen has had this since release 1.1.4. Here is the changelog (grep down for 1.1.4). I'm not sure when v1.1.14 was released, but v1.0 was started in 1997 I think. This should be prior art...
They aren't claiming that you can't replace their ads with those of competitiors. They are claiming that using their trademarked name as a trigger (and presumably selling it to make a profit) is trademark infringement.
"Using our trademarked name as a trigger to which you want to serve your ads causes customer confusion and crosses the line into trademark infringement."
I agree with LL Bean. Claira Corp (aka Gator) is clearly making a profit from and diluting the LL Bean name.
The basic pay scale does not reflect the fact that both your housing (BAH) and subsistence (BAS, aka food) are provided for. If you live off the military base, this can take the form of tax-free money. Also, the amount of time served has a large effect on basic pay, especially after four years. Here are some numbers (BAH is based on location, these numbers are for San Diego 92055, and w/o dependents):
Tax A is the estimated Fed Tax for 2003 if base pay, BAS, and BAH were all taxed.
Tax B is the estimated Fed Tax for 2003 if only base pay and BAH are taxed.
Taxes calculated are based on single status with standard deduction.
Of course, you will never be paid for overtime, but there are other special pay items:
Family Separation Allowance $250 / month? (not sure about this one)
Hazardous Duty Pay $150 / month
Diving Pay $340 / month
Parachute, Flight Deck, Demolition, some Others $150 / month
if Qualified HALO, $225 / month
Submarine Pay (increases with cumulative years at sea): $75 - $595 / month
Sea Pay (increase with years at sea): $50 - $646 / month
Doctors and dentists get anywhere from 12,000 to 36,000 / year incentive pay.
All in all, I think it is a fair pay scale. Some may argue for more considering that lives are (sometimes) on the line. To each his own. There are other benefits... medical/dental, 401k equiv (TSP), education assistance, life insurance...
From the AUP: Note: Comcast reserves the right to immediately terminate the Service and the Subscriber Agreement if you engage in any of the prohibited activities listed in this AUP or if you use the Comcast Equipment or Service in a way which is contrary to any Comcast policies or any of Comcast's suppliers' policies. You must strictly adhere to any policy set forth by another service provider accessed through the Service.
So they can terminate service, based on violation of the subarticles:
(vii) restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to use or enjoy the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a worm, virus, or other harmful feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information;
And transmitting a virus is definitely a violation. Still, it would be nice if there was more information on what will cause them to pull the plug.
I am a digital SLR convert. I waited until last year to switch from my EOS1-V to an EOS D60. I feared losing the control and feel that I had learned using the 1-V. Now I wish I had switched sooner. Some things to note about switching to digital:
1) The timing between shutter and button release. Digitals have a slight delay compared to most film SLRs. It takes some getting used to.
2) Printing. I take mine to a Ritz camera store and have them printed using the same chemical process that a C41 negative would be printed with. The prints run $0.39 for a 4x6, only take ~1 hour, and will last much longer than prints from an inkjet.
3) Buy a version of Adobe Photoshop. Nothing makes a photo look better than a quick blast of the unsharp mask. People will ask how you manage to take such sharp and clear photos. Cropping and color balancing can also work wonders.
4) Batteries! When your battery is low, your digital camera will respond much slower! Storing files will have a noticable delay. Buy a few extra recharable batteries and keep them handy.
5) A quality lens can go a long way toward attaining more professional looking photos. I'm not talking a cheap 70-210 zoom. Spend a little bit extra and get something with a GOOD APERATURE. Or better yet, make use of your new SLR abilities and get two! A handy 50mm f/1.4 and an expensive 70-200mm f/2.8.
6) Think about an external flash. Using the built in flash is okay, but you will get red-eye and more noticable shadows than if you had an external. Plus the built in flash can really drain your camera's batteries!
The bottom line? Merely switching to digital is not going to give you instant ability. It can make learning easier (instant-grat is so nice), but nothing takes the place of practice and knowing your camera. Laying out the cash for a good lens is an important step in my mind, but might be a little much for most hobbists. Join a club and borrow some lens from other members so that you can see the difference between an average and a quality lens.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words the Banks are using tax payer money to pay off their debts. Lovely.
Banks are required, by law, to maintain a minimum ratio of capital vs risk-weighted assets.
Capital is not just money in the bank. Capital is also shareholder equity, reserves, general provisions (aka losses), and term debt (and other things). Many banks are currently falling below the required capital ratios because of the housing loses, erosion of asset values, and the slowing of the economy.
Legally, many banks cannot loan money at this time.
I am not trying to say this covers all laws in all jurisdictions. Why do you keep trying to claim I am?
I quote Wikipedia because it provides a standard meaning for the word and concept of libel, which many people do not understand. I am not trying to claim that this concept covers all jurisdictions (see where I said many jurisdictions have variations). I understand that "libel" in one county might mean sleeping upside down, while in another county it might mean kicking a dog. However, for most jurisdictions you are going to find a basic variation of the standard concept of libel as stated on Wikipedia.
So lets see what Massachusetts defines libel as, shall we?
I could not locate the exact Mass. law on the net, but here is an article from the Mass. Bar Association Journalists' Handbook. Seems like a reputable source:
http://www.massbar.org/about-the-mba/press-room/journalists'-handbook/19-libel
Libel: In order to be libelous, a statement must be: 1) False, 2) Defamatory, 3) published with some degree of fault, 4) Damaging to its subject.
Seems to be along the same lines as what Wikipedia claims...
Of course, the devil is in the details and the tiny variations of the law between jurisdictions.
Now that we have a trusted (but not verified) definition for libel in the state of Mass., lets get back to the subject. I originally posted that it might be a case of public disclosure of private information. However, as others pointed out, reasons for firing are not necessarily private information. After looking at the article again, I still cannot determine if it should be a libel case.
"Sibbison - who says her client, Noonan, was a "sloppy record keeper" but not a thief - said the ruling lets him sue a company that "violated its own policies on employee privacy" through the mass e-mail."
"...had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass e-mail before, and jurors might conclude he "singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him,"
One quote states that Staples violated its own employee privacy policies, the next argues that it was malicious.
It could be libel if the email implied anything that could be false. If it implied that he stole intentionally when in fact all he did was keep poor records, for example.
Absolutely, many jurisdictions have variations. My point was that it appears to be more about disclosing private information than about actual libel. Though as another poster stated, if they fired him for incorrect expense reports, but then the email implied he intentionally filed incorrect expense reports (aka theft), then it might actually be a libel case.
Interesting. I suppose the CIA has, at times in the cold war, played hopscotch with that defining line.
Much like the NSA, the CIA is composed of both civilian and military personnel, thus allowing the line to be walked. I am not 100% sure of this, but I believe the CIA is granted additional authorities for some of its work.
I'm not sure I understand the role of cyber attacks against military infrastructure. Attacks on military infrastructure would seem to fall into the category of "war". If so, it implies a state of affairs in what the authors refer to as "kinetic" warfare.
Many top brass follow this belief: Why engage in cyber attack when I can just drop a bomb on it? The answer is actually many simple reasons. If we can disable a computer network instead of destroy it, we can retrieve valuable information from it later. We also will not need to rebuild it after the war, thus lowering the cost and decreasing the time required to stand up a new functional native government. We could also use some of the disabled resources during the war (once we have physical control of them) instead of shipping in our own equipment. Denial of service also has some potential strategic advantages over destruction. If we deny the use of certain networks, the enemy will not be 100% sure that we are engaging them. There will be a period of time with some doubt about what happened to the networks and that period of time can be used to great advantage. If you just destroy the networks, the enemy will undoubtedly go into immediate high alert.
Meanwhile, the civilian infrastructure question (e.g. internet) is interesting
In most countries, the civilian infrastructure and the military infrastructure are the same or overlap in so many places as to be almost the same. Disabling the civilian "internet" may also disable military networks.
what the hell are we trying to achieve?
This is a key point. I think many top military brass are unsure about what to do with cyber warfare. They don't know what the goal is and therefore cannot adequately define the scope and mission. They don't know the capabilities, or the capabilities change too fast for it to succeed in a traditional military system.
It is administered as part of DOD.
"In accordance with Department of Defense Directive 5100.20, dated December 23, 1971, the Director of the NSA and Chief of the CSS must always be a commissioned officer of the military services with at least the grade of a three star lieutenant general or vice admiral during the period of his incumbency."
That requires some explaining. Yes, the NSA is under the command of the Department of Defense, through the Director of NSA being a military officer. Employees of the NSA are considered civilians and not part of the Armed Forces, thus granted Title 50 (surveillance). There are Military personnel assigned to the NSA, working with the civilians. These Military have Title 10 (Armed Forces). Contractors are civilians with neither Title 10 nor Title 50.
There may be some exceptions to this for special circumstances with direct congressional approval or from way up the chain of command (aka the President).
I think it will stick.
Terms of a person's firing are almost always non-public. A company as large as Staples can't publish to ALL it's employees that they fired Bob over $5.00 misappropriated on an expense report. That's malicious. It's appropriate to say we will (and have) terminated over expense reports being wrong without giving the offenders name.
I can't think of any company I've worked at that's attached names to memos like that. Even companies that actually call the cops on somebody don't typically inform the employees of the person's name, or particular details of the infraction beyond the company "rule book" for just this reason.
Added bold for emphasis. This whole thing seems like it should be a "public disclosure of private facts" suit, not a Libel suit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.
"Unlike libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."
so why would cyber security go under the military, as opposed to the NSA, for example?
Largely because of the United States Code...
U.S.C. Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 3 (I think): Armed Forces, General Powers and Functions. Title 10 grants the Armed Forces the authority to commit potential "acts of war". In the cyber world, this means the ability to exploit, destory, degrade, or otherwise attack a foreign computer.
U.S.C. Title 50, Chapter 36: Electronic Surveillance. Title 50 grants the Intelligence Agencies the authority to collect electronic surveillance. It does not grant the direct authority to exploit a foreign computer.
Obviously, at some point, there is a need for both of these authorities during cyber warfare, or even general surveillance. Much like the government has separation of powers, the Intelligence Communities have separation of powers. And it is a good thing.
I'm not convinced by the point in the article regarding the NSA. On the contrary, it almost seems like the NSA model is ideal: the military requires operational folks who rotate through the doors of the NSA to get schooled and then go out into the field. Meanwhile, I would think, the NSA is staffed by career civilian professionals who can not only devote the necessary strategic attention to cyber warfare, but can also train the military as necessary. The article seems to address an issue where military staff is used to augment an understaffed NSA. Since apparently military staff is rotated out too frequently, it is not an effective use of resources. From this description, at least, this problem seems minor in comparison to the issues of shoe horning geeks into the military.
The model is good in theory. In practice it runs into several problems (though sometimes it does work well):
1) Military personnel are (generally) not promoted according to technical achievements. This leads to frustration when Military peers are recognized and promoted ahead of you. This also leads to frustration while working side-by-side with civilians who ARE recognized for technical achievements.
2) The pay difference. Working side by side with civilians who are paid 2x, 3x, and sometimes 4x what Military personnel can make. This also leads to frustration. At least the Military Medical personnel are paid extra for their skills.
3) There is very little visibility into achievements in the Intelligence Community. Everything is held very close to the vest and not discussed. Military reviews for promotion are often performed by those without a clearance, and even if they have a clearance, they don't have the access to read about most special programs. Your promotion paperwork will often have a generic, almost unrelated statement regarding special access achievements. This leads to frustration when passed over for promotion. You never know, did the reviewer *really* know what I accomplished?
4) After a tour through NSA, Military personnel are often deployed to the field. While there are some technical positions in the field, most are non-technical. Even if you are lucky and get a second non-field assignment, you will not be employing anything you just learned. You will likely be put in charge of a web page, or maintenance, or some database. General military commanders do not have a need for serious cyber warfare expertise.
Combine it all and you can see why this model makes if very difficult for the Military to retain their cyber personnel. They need to change things if they want to encourage retention. Of course some people stay anyway, there are always exceptions.
Creating a separate division for cyber warfare would perhaps help with these problems. An adjusted pay scale, better promotion opportunities, more peer recognition for achievements, and a continuous career in advanced technical fields.
But that is just my (biased) opinion.
Sorry. I'm a lawyer and you're only partly right. Passwords may not be "property" but it can still be potentially harmful to withhold them. If a plaintiff could prove harm or even better, immediate irreparable injury, a court would say give 'em up or go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.
Exactly. A court would rule and demand they be released. The proper course of action is filing a civil complaint and then letting the courts sort it out. Refusing to give out passwords is not a criminal act.
Mr. Childs agreed to release the passwords to the Mayor. He did not threaten to withhold them forever or completely refuse to give them out. He merely refused to give them out to people he did not trust. The city filed a very weak CRIMINAL complaint, based solely on three modems found in Mr. Childs office to put him in jail. The modems have been shown to be 100% legitimate, so the only remaining thing is his refusal to release passwords to people he did not trust (which is a civil complaint). He should be released from jail and counter sue. The DA should have never brought charges based solely on three modems.
I agree, bad analogy. Also incorrect information.
1) Mr. Childs did agree to release the password to the Mayor. He refused to release them to the people who demanded them because he believed they had an agenda that might compromise the security of the system.
2) At worst, Mr. Childs is guilty of a civil violation. The city, however, used a very weak case based on three modems in Mr. Childs' office to prosecute him with criminal charges. They have held him in jail for 7 months now, based solely on this fact. The judge set the bail (after prosecutors urging) at $5 Million, well beyond anything Mr. Childs could post. These modems turned out to be 100% legitimate and used for 1) paging Mr. Childs about network errors 2) testing connectivity 3) emergency fail over to a backup site. One of the modems existed prior to Mr. Childs even being hired.
They accused him of criminal acts, they searched his house, they trashed him in the media, they illegally leaked his HR records, and they held him in jail all based on THREE MODEMS.
There is a lot of false information floating out there. Take this SFGate article for example:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/14/BAOS11P1M5.DTL
"A disgruntled city computer engineer has virtually commandeered San Francisco's new multi million-dollar computer network, altering it to deny access to top administrators even as he sits in jail on $5 million bail, authorities said Monday."
How, exactly, did he alter the network from jail?
"Childs created a password that granted him exclusive access to the system, authorities said. He initially gave pass codes to police, but they didn't work. When pressed, Childs refused to divulge the real code even when threatened with arrest, they said."
He was the network administrator, so he was entitled to access to the system. If the city's IT policy did not require him to document important passwords, then he has done nothing wrong. They threatened to arrest him, for what could only ever be a CIVIL infraction.
As others have discussed, the demand for the passwords came during an impromptu meeting where the people present had no business hearing the passwords. He has no responsibility to give out passwords to random people. After this ambush, he felt he could not trust the people around him and stated he would give the passwords only to the Mayor--basically the equivalent of the CEO. Again, he has done nothing wrong.
"One official with knowledge of the case said he had been disciplined on the job in recent months for poor performance and that his supervisors had tried to fire him. "They weren't able to do it - this was kind of his insurance policy," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the attempted firing was a personnel matter."
A city official revealed confidential information to the press, knowing that it was illegal to do so (hence the anonymity) and insinuating that Mr. Childs had an ulterior motive. Smells fishy.
They knew that he had done nothing wrong, and that at best they had a CIVIL complaint. They went hunting and found three modems in his office. They used that to arrest him on CRIMINAL CHARGES. After that:
"Officials also said they feared that although Childs is in jail, he may have enabled a third party to access the system by telephone or other electronic device and order the destruction of hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents. Authorities have searched Childs' home and car for a device that could be used in such an attack, but so far no such evidence has been found."
WTF? They claimed he had setup three modems and used that to Justify searching his house. On this alone they are permitted to search his home and car? What we find out 7 months later:
"One was set up to dial out to Childs' pager any time a problem popped up on the city's network. The second was a DSL modem that had been set up even before Childs was hired at DTIS, used to connect to the Internet and test access to the city's network. The third was for emergency use only, designed to connect city computers to a disaster recovery site so that the city's network could be up and running in the event of an emergency."
This is a personal vendetta by Management at the City.
If this had happened at a large corporation, do you think the Police would have agreed and searched his house? Do you think the DA would have even charged him with anything? Would the judge have set a $5 million dollar bail??
I hope Mr. Childs wins and counter sues the city.
Just to emphasize, in the US from 1995 to 2007:
- the US Population increased 14% (263 Million to 301 Million)
- video game sales increased 560% (3.2 Billion to 17.9 Billion)
Yet during this same time, violent crimes committed by those under the age of 18 decreased by 50% (2169 vs 1063)
I realize this does not control for any other factors that could also account for a decrease in violence. Also, correlation... causation... yada yada.
300 Million people, 72 Million under 18 (24% *1), lets say only 24 Million of them are of age to consider (12-18) of which 97% (*2) play video games, leaving us with 23 Million teens. That means that 0.000046% of video game playing teens commit a violent crime.
That is a lower incidence rate than Bi-polar disorder and Schizophrenia. Pure conjecture here, but, perhaps there is something wrong with these teens before they even start playing video games?
*1:http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
*2:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2008/09/new_research_nearly_all_kids_p.html
Apparently, teenagers were never violent or moody before the development of video games.
Does anyone really know how many teenagers committed violence from 1900-1980ish (the period prior to violent video games)? No, because it was such a social taboo that it was not reported, was covered up, or word never traveled beyond city limits. Modern global media records every minor violent event in every town of America with more than three people.
How many teenagers took part in the World Wars and committed violence?
If you were a violent teenager in the pre-video game era, you had an outlet for your violence. War and to some extent protests.
I suppose the violent video game of Tetris caused the Menendez Brothers to kill their parents in 1989?
Bottom line, we cannot establish a trend because we don't have the data to create a trend (prior to the 80s)!
How far back can we trust the data to reliably contain all teenage violence?
FBI Report of crime statistics in 1995 *1:
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter: 21,597
1995 Offenders under 18: 2169
FBI Report of crime statistics in 2007 *2:
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter: 17,040
2007 Offenders under 18: 1063
So apparently, the video games in 1995 were more violent than the video games in 2007.
*1 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime2.pdf
*2 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html
The Jewish definition of marriage has been defined for thousands of years. It has a meaning at both the church and state level, which is the problem. Many people do not like the government redefining a religious term. An overwhelming majority of anti-gay marriage voters are for a separation of the terms and the granting of equal rights, but this is not acceptable by the gay community. This makes it messy, hence the majority voting for Prop8.
P.S. I voted for Prop8, live in Bay Area, had gay teachers/classmates/friends, etc. If the government would stop using the term marriage, I would have voted for 100% equality.
The Buddhist definition of marriage has been defined for thousands of years. It is considered a personal and individual concern. It is not considered a religious duty or a sacrament ordained in heaven. Many people do not like Judaism redefining a social term. An overwhelming majority of anti-gay marriage voters are hypocrites, trying to force their beliefs on others but at the same time claiming equality for all. They drum up support for their beliefs using misleading statements like "Vote yes on prop 8 or the government will teach your second grader about gay sex" . They claim moral superiority while utilizing false, misleading advertising. This makes it messy, hence the majority voting for Prop8 feeling they were tricked into supporting it.
P.S. I voted no on Prop8, I don't live in the Bay Area, I don't have gay teachers/classmates/friends, etc. If the religious right would stop trying to claim ownership of words, I would respect them more.
Physical memory analysis is an up and coming challenge for many law enforcement agencies. How can you guarantee that a suspect's computer was not infected by some bad memory-only malware? Current tools only address the hard drive and what it contains. There has been a lot of research into physical memory analysis over the past few years:
Rootkit.com: has been researching physical memory for years http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=130, but in a slightly different context (hiding vs finding).
BlackHat Talks:
http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-federal-06/BH-Fed-06-Burdach/bh-fed-06-burdach-up.pdf
http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-07/Butler_and_Kendall/Presentation/bh-usa-07-butler_and_kendall.pdf
Papers: http://www.stormingmedia.us/50/5037/A503754.html
FatKit: http://www.4tphi.net/fatkit/
Contests: The Digital Forensics Research Workshop is running a Challenge to see who can create the best linux physical memory analysis tool: http://dfrws.org/2008/challenge/index.shtml
Now the commercial world is entering the fray: http://www.hbgary.com/hbgary_responder_datasheet.pdf
I'm looking forward to using some tools that don't require me to keep a notebook of esoteric command lines and a usb key full of dependencies. Not to mention some report friendly output. Should be a good year!
Perhaps this is from the old days of the Future Crew demo scene? They did some amazing things with limited CPU cycles back then (1988-1993).
There really was only one reason for invading Iraq. It was a *brilliant* strategic move for the US Military. It is central to a high instable region that controls a major resource that the US depends on. It effectively provides the capability for the US to project force into any middle eastern country without the previous hangups like asking permission to use foreign air-bases or to move Carrier Fleets into sensitive areas... You better believe that the US will have a permanent base with unrestricted use of Iraqi Air Space.
They do have decent calibration schemes. My Denon AVR3805 comes with a mic that you plug in and place at the listening position and then run the auto-calibration test. Toss in some Paradigm speakers and an SACD player and you have some *very* high quality audio. My previous receiver required me to manually take SPL measurements and input them for calibration. The Denon auto detects everything, including speaker locations. Soooo handy.
Was it just me, or did anyone else read that as a Scaled Composites Protoss Carrier aircraft? I guess we better start building our Science Vessels!
$13.00 64MB PC66 SDRAM 168-PIN DIMM 8X64-10
$7.00 AMD-K6-233 66MHz CPU
$7.00 AMD K6 Socket7 Fan with HeatSink
$3.99 10/100 PCI NIC
$19.95 2GB IDE HARD DRIVE MAJOR BRAND
$27.85 ASUS P5-99VM microATX w/Video & Audio
$17.94 MicroATX Case
$96.73
Easily enough to run whatever flavor of linux, but to appease the masses:
$14.45 Windows 98 SE License
$111.18
8 Sep 2004: Indymedianates publishes an article with photos of at least 1 (maybe 2?) undercover swiss police. Google cache of another site with pictures here. Translation of original Indymedia post.
Unknown date: FBI asks the post to be removed, but admitted no laws were violated: "The FBI agents told me that they were not concerned with the photos, but with the identifying information. There never was any such identifying information, and even if there was, it would likely be protected by the first amendment if it was obtained legally. (There was a recent case here in Washington that you may be familiar with on this very issue). But, even assuming it is illegal to post identifying information (which it is not), there WAS NO SUCH info. The FBI agents freely admitted to me that individuals have a right to take photographs of agents in public places and post those photos on the internet."
7 Oct 2004: Two Indymedia servers hosted by Rackspace (a US Company) but physically located in LONDON are taken. FBI agents are present at the seizure. No information is given other than the servers were taken. The order was issued to Rackspace (not Indymedia) and Rackspace was apparently barred from talking about it.
8 Oct 2004: Rackspace publishes that they turned over the servers in response to an order under MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty).
8 Oct 2004: The AFP states that the request for the seizure originated with the Italian and Switzerland governments.
Doxygen has had this since release 1.1.4. Here is the changelog (grep down for 1.1.4). I'm not sure when v1.1.14 was released, but v1.0 was started in 1997 I think. This should be prior art...
They aren't claiming that you can't replace their ads with those of competitiors. They are claiming that using their trademarked name as a trigger (and presumably selling it to make a profit) is trademark infringement.
"Using our trademarked name as a trigger to which you want to serve your ads causes customer confusion and crosses the line into trademark infringement."
I agree with LL Bean. Claira Corp (aka Gator) is clearly making a profit from and diluting the LL Bean name.
The basic pay scale does not reflect the fact that both your housing (BAH) and subsistence (BAS, aka food) are provided for. If you live off the military base, this can take the form of tax-free money. Also, the amount of time served has a large effect on basic pay, especially after four years. Here are some numbers (BAH is based on location, these numbers are for San Diego 92055, and w/o dependents):
6
Rank..Yrs..Base.Pay...BAS......BAH.......Total
E1....<2...14320.80...3150.00..11088.00..28558.80
E4....2....19659.60...3150.00..11088.00..33897.60
E5....4....23893.20...3150.00..12204.00..39247.20
E6....6....27720.00...3150.00..12888.00..43758.00
E8....12...39675.60...3150.00..15276.00..58101.00
01....<2...27172.80...2102.76..12744.00..42019.56
03....4....48326.40...2102.76..16308.00..66737.16
04....8....57711.60...2102.76..18768.00..78582.36
o6....16...81687.60...2102.76..21240.00..105030.3
Now, what are those tax-free BAH dollars worth?
Tax A is the estimated Fed Tax for 2003 if base pay, BAS, and BAH were all taxed.
Tax B is the estimated Fed Tax for 2003 if only base pay and BAH are taxed.
Taxes calculated are based on single status with standard deduction.
Rank..Tax.A.....Tax.B.....Savings
E4....4104.00...2361.00...1743.00
E8....10154.00..6329.00...3825.00
03....12304.00..8229.00...4075.00
06....22824.40..18873.00..3951.40
Of course, you will never be paid for overtime, but there are other special pay items:
Family Separation Allowance $250 / month? (not sure about this one)
Hazardous Duty Pay $150 / month
Diving Pay $340 / month
Parachute, Flight Deck, Demolition, some Others $150 / month
if Qualified HALO, $225 / month
Submarine Pay (increases with cumulative years at sea): $75 - $595 / month
Sea Pay (increase with years at sea): $50 - $646 / month
Doctors and dentists get anywhere from 12,000 to 36,000 / year incentive pay.
All in all, I think it is a fair pay scale. Some may argue for more considering that lives are (sometimes) on the line. To each his own. There are other benefits... medical/dental, 401k equiv (TSP), education assistance, life insurance...
Here is Comcast's Terms Of Service.
From the AUP:
Note: Comcast reserves the right to immediately terminate the Service and the Subscriber Agreement if you engage in any of the prohibited activities listed in this AUP or if you use the Comcast Equipment or Service in a way which is contrary to any Comcast policies or any of Comcast's suppliers' policies. You must strictly adhere to any policy set forth by another service provider accessed through the Service.
So they can terminate service, based on violation of the subarticles:
(vii) restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to use or enjoy the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a worm, virus, or other harmful feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information;
And transmitting a virus is definitely a violation. Still, it would be nice if there was more information on what will cause them to pull the plug.
I am a digital SLR convert. I waited until last year to switch from my EOS1-V to an EOS D60. I feared losing the control and feel that I had learned using the 1-V. Now I wish I had switched sooner. Some things to note about switching to digital:
1) The timing between shutter and button release. Digitals have a slight delay compared to most film SLRs. It takes some getting used to.
2) Printing. I take mine to a Ritz camera store and have them printed using the same chemical process that a C41 negative would be printed with. The prints run $0.39 for a 4x6, only take ~1 hour, and will last much longer than prints from an inkjet.
3) Buy a version of Adobe Photoshop. Nothing makes a photo look better than a quick blast of the unsharp mask. People will ask how you manage to take such sharp and clear photos. Cropping and color balancing can also work wonders.
4) Batteries! When your battery is low, your digital camera will respond much slower! Storing files will have a noticable delay. Buy a few extra recharable batteries and keep them handy.
5) A quality lens can go a long way toward attaining more professional looking photos. I'm not talking a cheap 70-210 zoom. Spend a little bit extra and get something with a GOOD APERATURE. Or better yet, make use of your new SLR abilities and get two! A handy 50mm f/1.4 and an expensive 70-200mm f/2.8.
6) Think about an external flash. Using the built in flash is okay, but you will get red-eye and more noticable shadows than if you had an external. Plus the built in flash can really drain your camera's batteries!
The bottom line? Merely switching to digital is not going to give you instant ability. It can make learning easier (instant-grat is so nice), but nothing takes the place of practice and knowing your camera. Laying out the cash for a good lens is an important step in my mind, but might be a little much for most hobbists. Join a club and borrow some lens from other members so that you can see the difference between an average and a quality lens.
- There is no sig.