Why do you hate transgender people, and want to lump them in with rapists? Why do you hate rape survivors, and want to lump sexual assault in with cruising for sex?
(The people who push for the anti-transgender bathroom laws say they are protecting women from rapists, or from being reminded of sexual assault, not from transgender people. There have been quite a few sexual assaults and privacy invasions by non-transgender men in women's restrooms. The tiny number of "misconduct" cases you cite were people seeking consensual sex.)
How seriously do you expect me to take a doubly dishonest meme? How seriously do you expect me to take your claims about "facts and evidence" when the only thing you cite is that dishonest meme?
My cousin's best friend's college roommate's neighbor has an Internet GED in law, and she said that this has never _ever_ happened. So I'm going to just have to not take your utterly unsubstantiated word for it.
To a first approximation, all laws are passed and enforced under claims of protecting people. "We have to protect property values against this couple's vegetable garden, fine them $100/day!" "We have to protect people from speeders, send poor people to jail if they can't pay traffic tickets!" "We have to protect the good people of New York from untaxed cigarettes, choke this non-violent man to death!"
Your real criterion, which you tried to hide, is whether you personally agree with the law.
I didn't make such an accusation (various US security pundits have). I only said it was as plausible an explanation (for Wikileaks making demands in exchange for details about security bugs) as "Wikileaks is stupid enough to think that companies who don't agree to its terms must be in cahoots with the CIA". As I said in a comment elsewhere in this chain, I don't think either explanation is very convincing.
So it's cool with you if a localized government wants to ban people with penises from going into women's restrooms, because they should be able to decide what they allow or forbid?
Please clarify. Do you mean that keeping the details of exploitable bugs away from the people who can fix them or thwart attacks is a "massive benefit to us"? Do you think that the Kremlin has the best interests of Americans at heart? Does the Kremlin pay you as a propagandist?
How do you suggest that Wikileaks (or the Kremlin) would dump all the information in this archive while withholding the details of the exploits?
The Kremlin presumably would not have known about all, or perhaps many, of the bugs before the leak. They gain from keeping the bugs open.
The Kremlin would love to undermine public trust in major US companies, either directly because of security problems, or indirectly by painting them as CIA pawns.
The Kremlin would love to be able to focus attention on US covert activities to divert attention from all the journalists and opposition politicians it has assassinated.
You read what I just wrote. I gave that as only one example of a reason that companies would not accept terms from Wikileaks.
There is also a very big difference between "doing classified work for the government", which I described, and "keeping products buggy because of CIA money", which the apparent Kremlin stooge suggested was the motive. Someone could work on an unclassified system where certain details are classified; for example, a land mine and IED detection system, where the details of how well it works on military vehicles in various conditions are classified, but those classified details are important for improving the system and saving lives.
I do not think either hypothesis is convincing -- but they are basically equally plausible.
Any person or company with a US security clearance can lose it if they solicit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. If they agree to Wikileaks' terms, that would probably qualify as a serious security violation; even talking with Wikileaks about the subject might qualify. That doesn't mean they are "in bed with" the CIA, only that they do work related to national security and wish to continue doing that.
There are lots of other reasons that a company would refuse to agree to terms dictated by a party with details of security problems. Some examples: it sets a bad precedent, it suggests the possibility of corruption, and there is seldom any way to enforce compliance.
Because there are so many reasons that companies would reject terms dictated by Wikileaks, and not want to negotiate terms, it is either naive or malicious to infer that companies who refuse Wikileaks's terms did so because they have secret deals with the CIA or anything else to hide.
Exactly one of those was a software company, and that company was European and pretty insignificant. That doesn't excuse keeping the details from the major vendors that most people care about.
Has any software vendor of note tried to sue people for public disclosure of security flaws? If so, what was the outcome?
I struggle to see a good-faith reason for WikiLeaks to require agreement to any terms before they tell vendors about these flaws. It gives the impression that they want the bugs to stay open and/or have a political stick to beat the vendors with.
What fraction of a percent of the Internet did that consist of?
The diversity of IoT devices means that you'll need different attack vectors and payloads to compromise then and then exploit that access. We must not be complacent, but pretending there will soon be a Skynet is unwarranted and counterproductive.
Schneier gives kind of a "shouting at clouds" vibe. The Internet is not like a truck you load things into or off of, it's not a series of tubes, it's not one giant robot that will turn into Skynet once it achieves sentience.
Internet Green is people! Wait, still the wrong movie, but closer.
The Internet is made up of billions of devices, each with different capabilities, each with their own purpose and "goals", influenced by others in its social network. Some of these influencers are nearby, some are far away; some are humans, some are machines. Some of these machines are robust against malicious interference, but most have weak points.
The Internet does not look or act like a single robot. It looks and acts like a network or society, not a monolithic entity, and talking about it as a monolithic thing encourages unwise reactions.
Free, gratis, or even if the employees had to pay, it doesn't matter to the dynamics of the local restaurant market. What matters is that a new corporate office opened up, presumably bringing new employees, but it doesn't make sense for these new employees eating in the building where they work to cause the local restaurants to close.
Thyssen was not the SS. He grew disillusioned with the Nazis after the Night Of The Long Knives. (He should have seen them for what they were earlier, of course.). The Guardian story is long on innuendo, and utterly lacking in details beyond what is presented in a much more objective way in Prescott Bush's Wikipedia page.
Without the Oxford comma, there is still the difference of "and" vs "or" in your two examples.
The Oxford comma is needed to disambiguate short lists like "the hookers, J. Edgar Hoover and JFK". That ambiguity goes away once the list has more than three elements.
"I had lunch with the bookies, the hookers, Hoover and JFK." "I had lunch with the bookies and the hookers and Hoover and JFK."
Neither is ambiguous at all, and neither is the Maine law that started this all.
The sentence is ungrammatical otherwise. It says "A, B, C or D". If we assume "C or D" is meant as one item in they list, there is a missing conjunction ("and" or "or", in this case) before it. The only reasonable way to read it is that C and D are separate items.
Which "American interests" sold those things to Nazis during WW2? Which corporation operated by Prescott Bush were you referring to? If they're not far-out woo-woo theories, why doesn't Bush's Wikipedia page say more about those things than noting that similar claims were debunked long ago?
An employer who refuses to hire someone for an illegal reason is still liable. The prospective employees don't need to have either contacts or any minimum term of service to make illegal actions illegal.
There are still tons of both state and federal laws that make it illegal to fire (or refuse to hire) people for particular reasons. In an at-will state, your boss can fire you for looking funny at an employee or coworker, but they'd be in deep legal trouble if they fire you for being pregnant or because of your race.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you hate transgender people, and want to lump them in with rapists? Why do you hate rape survivors, and want to lump sexual assault in with cruising for sex?
(The people who push for the anti-transgender bathroom laws say they are protecting women from rapists, or from being reminded of sexual assault, not from transgender people. There have been quite a few sexual assaults and privacy invasions by non-transgender men in women's restrooms. The tiny number of "misconduct" cases you cite were people seeking consensual sex.)
How seriously do you expect me to take a doubly dishonest meme? How seriously do you expect me to take your claims about "facts and evidence" when the only thing you cite is that dishonest meme?
My cousin's best friend's college roommate's neighbor has an Internet GED in law, and she said that this has never _ever_ happened. So I'm going to just have to not take your utterly unsubstantiated word for it.
To a first approximation, all laws are passed and enforced under claims of protecting people. "We have to protect property values against this couple's vegetable garden, fine them $100/day!" "We have to protect people from speeders, send poor people to jail if they can't pay traffic tickets!" "We have to protect the good people of New York from untaxed cigarettes, choke this non-violent man to death!"
Your real criterion, which you tried to hide, is whether you personally agree with the law.
I didn't make such an accusation (various US security pundits have). I only said it was as plausible an explanation (for Wikileaks making demands in exchange for details about security bugs) as "Wikileaks is stupid enough to think that companies who don't agree to its terms must be in cahoots with the CIA". As I said in a comment elsewhere in this chain, I don't think either explanation is very convincing.
So why does Wikileaks want to keep the bugs secret from the companies that can fix them?
So it's cool with you if a localized government wants to ban people with penises from going into women's restrooms, because they should be able to decide what they allow or forbid?
Please clarify. Do you mean that keeping the details of exploitable bugs away from the people who can fix them or thwart attacks is a "massive benefit to us"? Do you think that the Kremlin has the best interests of Americans at heart? Does the Kremlin pay you as a propagandist?
How do you suggest that Wikileaks (or the Kremlin) would dump all the information in this archive while withholding the details of the exploits?
The Kremlin presumably would not have known about all, or perhaps many, of the bugs before the leak. They gain from keeping the bugs open.
The Kremlin would love to undermine public trust in major US companies, either directly because of security problems, or indirectly by painting them as CIA pawns.
The Kremlin would love to be able to focus attention on US covert activities to divert attention from all the journalists and opposition politicians it has assassinated.
You read what I just wrote. I gave that as only one example of a reason that companies would not accept terms from Wikileaks.
There is also a very big difference between "doing classified work for the government", which I described, and "keeping products buggy because of CIA money", which the apparent Kremlin stooge suggested was the motive. Someone could work on an unclassified system where certain details are classified; for example, a land mine and IED detection system, where the details of how well it works on military vehicles in various conditions are classified, but those classified details are important for improving the system and saving lives.
Another useful idiot self-identifies.
I do not think either hypothesis is convincing -- but they are basically equally plausible.
Any person or company with a US security clearance can lose it if they solicit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. If they agree to Wikileaks' terms, that would probably qualify as a serious security violation; even talking with Wikileaks about the subject might qualify. That doesn't mean they are "in bed with" the CIA, only that they do work related to national security and wish to continue doing that.
There are lots of other reasons that a company would refuse to agree to terms dictated by a party with details of security problems. Some examples: it sets a bad precedent, it suggests the possibility of corruption, and there is seldom any way to enforce compliance.
Because there are so many reasons that companies would reject terms dictated by Wikileaks, and not want to negotiate terms, it is either naive or malicious to infer that companies who refuse Wikileaks's terms did so because they have secret deals with the CIA or anything else to hide.
[citation needed]
Also: Companies do not decide what makes a crime, and do not (as far as I know of, in civilized countries) have the power to prosecute crimes.
Exactly one of those was a software company, and that company was European and pretty insignificant. That doesn't excuse keeping the details from the major vendors that most people care about.
Equally plausible: They're doing it because they're a front for the Kremlin.
Has any software vendor of note tried to sue people for public disclosure of security flaws? If so, what was the outcome?
I struggle to see a good-faith reason for WikiLeaks to require agreement to any terms before they tell vendors about these flaws. It gives the impression that they want the bugs to stay open and/or have a political stick to beat the vendors with.
What fraction of a percent of the Internet did that consist of?
The diversity of IoT devices means that you'll need different attack vectors and payloads to compromise then and then exploit that access. We must not be complacent, but pretending there will soon be a Skynet is unwarranted and counterproductive.
Schneier gives kind of a "shouting at clouds" vibe. The Internet is not like a truck you load things into or off of, it's not a series of tubes, it's not one giant robot that will turn into Skynet once it achieves sentience.
Internet Green is people! Wait, still the wrong movie, but closer.
The Internet is made up of billions of devices, each with different capabilities, each with their own purpose and "goals", influenced by others in its social network. Some of these influencers are nearby, some are far away; some are humans, some are machines. Some of these machines are robust against malicious interference, but most have weak points.
The Internet does not look or act like a single robot. It looks and acts like a network or society, not a monolithic entity, and talking about it as a monolithic thing encourages unwise reactions.
Free, gratis, or even if the employees had to pay, it doesn't matter to the dynamics of the local restaurant market. What matters is that a new corporate office opened up, presumably bringing new employees, but it doesn't make sense for these new employees eating in the building where they work to cause the local restaurants to close.
Google opened an office, and because they provided free food for their employees who used to work in other places, local restaurants closed?
Thyssen was not the SS. He grew disillusioned with the Nazis after the Night Of The Long Knives. (He should have seen them for what they were earlier, of course.). The Guardian story is long on innuendo, and utterly lacking in details beyond what is presented in a much more objective way in Prescott Bush's Wikipedia page.
Without the Oxford comma, there is still the difference of "and" vs "or" in your two examples.
The Oxford comma is needed to disambiguate short lists like "the hookers, J. Edgar Hoover and JFK". That ambiguity goes away once the list has more than three elements.
"I had lunch with the bookies, the hookers, Hoover and JFK."
"I had lunch with the bookies and the hookers and Hoover and JFK."
Neither is ambiguous at all, and neither is the Maine law that started this all.
The sentence is ungrammatical otherwise. It says "A, B, C or D". If we assume "C or D" is meant as one item in they list, there is a missing conjunction ("and" or "or", in this case) before it. The only reasonable way to read it is that C and D are separate items.
Which "American interests" sold those things to Nazis during WW2? Which corporation operated by Prescott Bush were you referring to? If they're not far-out woo-woo theories, why doesn't Bush's Wikipedia page say more about those things than noting that similar claims were debunked long ago?
Thanks for the alternative-history fiction. Do you have anything to say about the real world?
An employer who refuses to hire someone for an illegal reason is still liable. The prospective employees don't need to have either contacts or any minimum term of service to make illegal actions illegal.
There are still tons of both state and federal laws that make it illegal to fire (or refuse to hire) people for particular reasons. In an at-will state, your boss can fire you for looking funny at an employee or coworker, but they'd be in deep legal trouble if they fire you for being pregnant or because of your race.