This is a position that requires someone who knows about the fields of information collecting, data mining, and personal privacy. Not someone on a soapbox.
RTFA. From it, you'd read:
"The privacy rights community generally views O'Connor Kelly as a consensus builder, but it is too soon to say how much influence she will have in protecting Americans' privacy rights, said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "
Though she is a self proclaimed geek at heart, there isn't much record on her personal stance. She brought Doubleclick back in line, and patched the major gaps in its public relations. This could be seen as a minimum to saving the company; so was it a strong privacy move, or simply providing good counsel for a client? Too early to tell.
I'd be more concerned if it was some know-nothing anti-gub'ment clown from the EFF in a position of power, in the end. They'd make it illegal to write down someones first name, if they had their way.
First of all, O'Connor Kelly won't be making law. That's a job for congress and the president (remember highschool government?). Secondly, an extreme privacy advocate in the whitehouse would probably do wonders to offset the DoJ influence that's there now; but then anything that GWB doesn't want to hear already probably won't be said.
Well, my little troll, perhaps you should of read the article.
From the CryptoGram:
"If this were just a nasty way to harass people you don't like, it wouldn't be worth writing about. What's interesting about this attack is that it exploits the boundary between cyberspace and the real world."
No one seems to consider the possibility that entire population of human beings could be into a form of national BDSM or D/s where they enjoy the brutal, criminal oppression from a power hungry tyrant...
Sarcasm aside, there supposedly is a rather significant portion of the Shia population (either in Iraq or Saudi or both) that wants a Caliphant and not a democracy. So, yes, some people don't want a democracy as we have it.
I think a more valid, but difficult, question is do we believe in the UN charter that says people have a right to self governance implies only democracy in the world or does it suggest that a population can choose to support a different kind of government?
This is an actual question. We in the US have been brought up to be part of a democratic republic. It was certainly better than what we had before, and it's certainly better than most of the post colonial governments on earth. I certain don't want another. But is it the only valid form of government?
...but they are used to a way of life none of us can relate to, and will provbably start to move in "the wrong direction" unless we can quickly influence them.
Indeed, some of the open questions are: If the Iraqi people do get a true democracy, will it be pro-US? If not, will America stand for it, or will we declare it illigitimate?
That article on the post beneth or above meine from arabnews.com about America controoling the world is bs.
I agree that it's lame, but what does that arab world think about it? An important factor in this action was the middle east's reaction to a new Iraqi state. Will they see it as an opportunity, or as a slight? Right now, much of the arab press seems to see it as an insult and a humiliating defeat for arabs. Will this view win out, or will we be exhonorated in time?
It's too early to tell from where I'm sitting. But rumour has it that recruits to terrorist camps is up.
I disagree. From what I've heard (not much different from what many others have), every Iraqi will need aid. The restructuring of the government will likely disrupt much of the basic services that are required to live. In the short term, water and food delivery, medical supplies (that were taxed before hostilities broke out), and electricity. In the long term, local food production, a reliable law enforcement and judiciary, and (yes) a communication system.
But it's rather silly to ignore work on the long term necessities while securing the short term goals. Many of the short term goals need the long term goals to work. Without law enforcement, distribution to the needy of food and water is difficult. And, yes, a communication infrastructure (not what the article is talking about at all) to coordinate local departments is essential.
Some of these can be bandaided by the USUK forces in the region, but movement to a permanent system in important.
We already tried that. It resulted in an attempted invasion of Kuwait, and the eventual (supposed) death of their president/dictator.
Hmmmm.... Yes, I see the bug right here. If we just pass in the food PCs and cars with out the associated weapons, dual purpose items, and CIA intel, then it should run much better.
Kinda like upgrading your server from Windows 3.1 to Windows NT 1.0 SP1
so lay out a plan for me to move my 100 person company from an Active Directory and Exchange based company that does 66%.NET web development (the other 33% is a combinaation of Java and Flash) to a non-Microsoft platform.
<joke> Hmmm... Maybe you have a point. What company is it? May we can put you out of business when your TCO passes your profits:) </joke>
...another loophole in the constitution made this windbag our chief executive. More people voted for Gore. Gawd.
Just for clairification, it wan't a loophole but rather, a balancing of state vs. population power that was put in to calm the protests of the smaller states during the creation of the constitution. I pin the idiot's success on the lame voting technology that is in place. However, the crap that goes on when we're stupid enough to go to a paperless voting system will make that small potatoes, I'm guessing.
That said, I agree that Bush is responsible for all the violations of his subordinates. Hopefully, we'll find a court with an intact set of balls to arrest the rediculous abuses that are going on these days. In order to get the political body going on it, people would need to *want* to reform law enforcement.
Remember: if they haven't detained you yet, then they're on your side!
It's also worth noting that the UN Security Council gives France, Germany, and Russia an impressive amount of global power. If they can keep Wolfowitz(sp?), Rumsfeld, et al. from pushing the neo-conservative plan in the US, then it's quite likely that the UN will continue to be a loose framework for American foreign policy. One of the stated beliefs of the neo-conservative faction is that international bodies and treaties are more of a inpediment than an enabler for US interests.
So, although various european companies are making a buck off of Saddam starving his people the way we did selling them stuff to kill Iranians and Kurds in the 80's; I'm guessing the political structure is more bend on preserving the power of the UN.
But then, who can know? Maybe we'll get a peek at it in history...
IANAIL (I am not an international lawyer), but I couldn't pass these:
Those interests include protecting its people and providing a safe, free environment for them to live and work in. (emphisis added)
With the NY Times publishing a blacklist and the old "if you don't like it, get out" line making a come back, I'm waiting for the free environment to make an appearance here. If we can't protect freedom here, we don't have a chance to export it....the government of Iraq has effectively ignored the spirit of the UN resolutions and inspections over the last several years (12)
It has been argued before that that's exctly what we're doing (the US). No UN resolution gives us the authority to determine the compliance of Iraq. We went to war under the UN banner, and passed a cease fire resolution in the UN. None of this puts us into control. You can say it's self defence, but that's a different story.
But, I support the President and the rest of the coalition, which have more knowledge and information about the true happenings within the government and organizations that I do...
Since the shit hit the fan, it's good that you're behind them. It's worth noting that France, Germany, and Russia have world class intelligence services as well. They didn't seem to think Iraq was a big enough threat to override their national interests....to take action to stop the acts of that government which will soon threaten the safety and freedom we enjoy in this country.
That has never been proven. It has never been shown to be a probability. They have no means of delivery to our territories except via terrorist; and why would a terrorist go to a heavily watched country like Iraq. Iraq has been secular for the whole history of the Baath party. Why not go to Pakistan for nuclear material? Why not N. Korea? CB weaponry? Why not go to the domestic sources that supposedly manufactured it in US labs? It would seem that Iraq is the least of our problems.
You're entitled to your opinion, and this is mine.
I'm glad to read this. It seems the least common view in America today. Keep up your support. Keep your eyes open.
They didn't intentionally weaken it or put in back doors.
It's also worth mentioning that "It's a high-risk algorithm, meaning that there was a high risk of compromise. Hence, the NSA is unlikely to put its most secret (or clever) design elements in the algorithm." (from July 15, 1998 Cryptogram)
So, yeah, I agree completely with all of the conclussions in this thread, but I also think it's very unlikely that the NSA has equal or fewer crypto techniques than the public.
However, it's worth noting that Iraq is not and cannot invade other countries anymore. The threat it posses as a source for CBR weaponry is most definitely real, but it is not the biggest threat in the world by far. N. Korea is a willing cash and carry source for nuclear materials. Old CB labs in the old southern USSR regions are uninspected and unguarded. I believe some of them are in Ubekistan or such.
So, yes, I agree that a country that is a threat to world peace due to military actions is a well studied scenario. But, no, a dynamic situation that covers many nations, many interests (including oil producers), and uncertain supply chains is new - delicate handling may be required....back to the/. discussion on energy production.
Wow. You've convinced me to check out python. I've been an off and on perl coder, but usually stick to the C/C++/Java flavor of typed compiled languages.
Although I push for perl over some of the half baked solutions that get flown around here, I must admit that unless you're *very* comfortable with the language, your perl readability level is going to be crap. If you know you're gonna have to review of modify a noncoder's work, push for something else...
Can anybody tell me why we can't just run on an alcohol? If it's too weak, then why not add low levels of nitro[m]ethane to correct?
The alcohol can be readily created from crop surplus. Is nitromethane and other power boosters that expensive? Granted, the oil companies have nothing to gain from this. But the alcohol can be made from just about any half asses crop.
...radio production is not the same as a professional recording studio.
Yeah, I noticed that too about the article. They only mention doing real studio tasks on linux by saying "we could have done them if we wanted to." Well, why didn't they?
A major reason why people I've tried to convert in the audio field won't is because of the lack of professional grade HD recording, sequencing, audio effects apps for linux.
If I can run unsigned code then palladium really is not about security but drm.
Please note that is signed apps "execute" data as code, then signing the binary executable may sill get you nothing. While things like TCPA and Palladium can verify an executable piece of code hasn't been changed, if that executable piece of code simply reads in any binary as data and runs (the allowable parts of) it, then you are - as I said - screwed.
TCPA, et al. is not mandatory access control (ala SElinux).
...I'd be a lot more suprised if you could find even a small population that didn't have diverse viewpoints.
Yeah, people see the same evens through their own filter; but compare the US's view of itself (the white knight riding to the rescue of the world) with the rest of the world's view (a playground bully that steals kids lunch money and sits on them until they act the way he wants). This is an extreme difference.
What's most surprising to me is that each side is, for the most part, unaware of the other's view.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you're my hero!!
You're my hero(ine?)
This is a position that requires someone who knows about the fields of information collecting, data mining, and personal privacy. Not someone on a soapbox.
RTFA. From it, you'd read:
"The privacy rights community generally views O'Connor Kelly as a consensus builder, but it is too soon to say how much influence she will have in protecting Americans' privacy rights, said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "
Though she is a self proclaimed geek at heart, there isn't much record on her personal stance. She brought Doubleclick back in line, and patched the major gaps in its public relations. This could be seen as a minimum to saving the company; so was it a strong privacy move, or simply providing good counsel for a client? Too early to tell.
I'd be more concerned if it was some know-nothing anti-gub'ment clown from the EFF in a position of power, in the end. They'd make it illegal to write down someones first name, if they had their way.
First of all, O'Connor Kelly won't be making law. That's a job for congress and the president (remember highschool government?). Secondly, an extreme privacy advocate in the whitehouse would probably do wonders to offset the DoJ influence that's there now; but then anything that GWB doesn't want to hear already probably won't be said.
Well, my little troll, perhaps you should of read the article.
From the CryptoGram:
"If this were just a nasty way to harass people you don't like, it wouldn't be worth writing about. What's interesting about this attack is that it exploits the boundary between cyberspace and the real world."
-RB
No one seems to consider the possibility that entire population of human beings could be into a form of national BDSM or D/s where they enjoy the brutal, criminal oppression from a power hungry tyrant...
Sarcasm aside, there supposedly is a rather significant portion of the Shia population (either in Iraq or Saudi or both) that wants a Caliphant and not a democracy. So, yes, some people don't want a democracy as we have it.
I think a more valid, but difficult, question is do we believe in the UN charter that says people have a right to self governance implies only democracy in the world or does it suggest that a population can choose to support a different kind of government?
This is an actual question. We in the US have been brought up to be part of a democratic republic. It was certainly better than what we had before, and it's certainly better than most of the post colonial governments on earth. I certain don't want another. But is it the only valid form of government?
...but they are used to a way of life none of us can relate to, and will provbably start to move in "the wrong direction" unless we can quickly influence them.
Indeed, some of the open questions are: If the Iraqi people do get a true democracy, will it be pro-US? If not, will America stand for it, or will we declare it illigitimate?
That article on the post beneth or above meine from arabnews.com about America controoling the world is bs.
I agree that it's lame, but what does that arab world think about it? An important factor in this action was the middle east's reaction to a new Iraqi state. Will they see it as an opportunity, or as a slight? Right now, much of the arab press seems to see it as an insult and a humiliating defeat for arabs. Will this view win out, or will we be exhonorated in time?
It's too early to tell from where I'm sitting. But rumour has it that recruits to terrorist camps is up.
But those aren't the people who need the help.
I disagree. From what I've heard (not much different from what many others have), every Iraqi will need aid. The restructuring of the government will likely disrupt much of the basic services that are required to live. In the short term, water and food delivery, medical supplies (that were taxed before hostilities broke out), and electricity. In the long term, local food production, a reliable law enforcement and judiciary, and (yes) a communication system.
But it's rather silly to ignore work on the long term necessities while securing the short term goals. Many of the short term goals need the long term goals to work. Without law enforcement, distribution to the needy of food and water is difficult. And, yes, a communication infrastructure (not what the article is talking about at all) to coordinate local departments is essential.
Some of these can be bandaided by the USUK forces in the region, but movement to a permanent system in important.
Which would you rather have RIGHT NOW, food or kazaa?
Ummm...That wasn't my point.
1) I was joking.
2) The people who can rebuild the communication infrastructure probably have not experience in food and water distribution (a nont trivial problem).
3) Neither are going on now dispite the need for both, so your point is moot.
We already tried that. It resulted in an attempted invasion of Kuwait, and the eventual (supposed) death of their president/dictator.
Hmmmm.... Yes, I see the bug right here. If we just pass in the food PCs and cars with out the associated weapons, dual purpose items, and CIA intel, then it should run much better.
Kinda like upgrading your server from Windows 3.1 to Windows NT 1.0 SP1
so lay out a plan for me to move my 100 person company from an Active Directory and Exchange based company that does 66% .NET web development (the other 33% is a combinaation of Java and Flash) to a non-Microsoft platform.
:)
<joke>
Hmmm... Maybe you have a point. What company is it? May we can put you out of business when your TCO passes your profits
</joke>
...another loophole in the constitution made this windbag our chief executive. More people voted for Gore. Gawd.
Just for clairification, it wan't a loophole but rather, a balancing of state vs. population power that was put in to calm the protests of the smaller states during the creation of the constitution. I pin the idiot's success on the lame voting technology that is in place. However, the crap that goes on when we're stupid enough to go to a paperless voting system will make that small potatoes, I'm guessing.
That said, I agree that Bush is responsible for all the violations of his subordinates. Hopefully, we'll find a court with an intact set of balls to arrest the rediculous abuses that are going on these days. In order to get the political body going on it, people would need to *want* to reform law enforcement.
Remember: if they haven't detained you yet, then they're on your side!
The U.S. government is becoming increasingly corrupt.
Are you suggesting that it ever had a negative slope?
</joke>
It's also worth noting that the UN Security Council gives France, Germany, and Russia an impressive amount of global power. If they can keep Wolfowitz(sp?), Rumsfeld, et al. from pushing the neo-conservative plan in the US, then it's quite likely that the UN will continue to be a loose framework for American foreign policy. One of the stated beliefs of the neo-conservative faction is that international bodies and treaties are more of a inpediment than an enabler for US interests.
So, although various european companies are making a buck off of Saddam starving his people the way we did selling them stuff to kill Iranians and Kurds in the 80's; I'm guessing the political structure is more bend on preserving the power of the UN.
But then, who can know? Maybe we'll get a peek at it in history...
Google won't let me do some things that I could do then.
I'm just curious. Why don't you use a different search engine?
IANAIL (I am not an international lawyer), but I couldn't pass these:
...the government of Iraq has effectively ignored the spirit of the UN resolutions and inspections over the last several years (12)
...to take action to stop the acts of that government which will soon threaten the safety and freedom we enjoy in this country.
Those interests include protecting its people and providing a safe, free environment for them to live and work in. (emphisis added)
With the NY Times publishing a blacklist and the old "if you don't like it, get out" line making a come back, I'm waiting for the free environment to make an appearance here. If we can't protect freedom here, we don't have a chance to export it.
It has been argued before that that's exctly what we're doing (the US). No UN resolution gives us the authority to determine the compliance of Iraq. We went to war under the UN banner, and passed a cease fire resolution in the UN. None of this puts us into control. You can say it's self defence, but that's a different story.
But, I support the President and the rest of the coalition, which have more knowledge and information about the true happenings within the government and organizations that I do...
Since the shit hit the fan, it's good that you're behind them. It's worth noting that France, Germany, and Russia have world class intelligence services as well. They didn't seem to think Iraq was a big enough threat to override their national interests.
That has never been proven. It has never been shown to be a probability. They have no means of delivery to our territories except via terrorist; and why would a terrorist go to a heavily watched country like Iraq. Iraq has been secular for the whole history of the Baath party. Why not go to Pakistan for nuclear material? Why not N. Korea? CB weaponry? Why not go to the domestic sources that supposedly manufactured it in US labs? It would seem that Iraq is the least of our problems.
You're entitled to your opinion, and this is mine.
I'm glad to read this. It seems the least common view in America today. Keep up your support. Keep your eyes open.
Indeed. The *big thing* currently seems to be lattice systems.
She's now the executive in charge of computer security throughout the entire company.
:)
Oh god! This so blows away anything I've ever seen that it warms my heart. Hope the current job is better rjh
It's also worth mentioning that "It's a high-risk algorithm, meaning that there was a high risk of compromise. Hence, the NSA is unlikely to put its most secret (or clever) design elements in the algorithm." (from July 15, 1998 Cryptogram)
So, yeah, I agree completely with all of the conclussions in this thread, but I also think it's very unlikely that the NSA has equal or fewer crypto techniques than the public.
This is getting off topic, but good point.
...back to the /. discussion on energy production.
However, it's worth noting that Iraq is not and cannot invade other countries anymore. The threat it posses as a source for CBR weaponry is most definitely real, but it is not the biggest threat in the world by far. N. Korea is a willing cash and carry source for nuclear materials. Old CB labs in the old southern USSR regions are uninspected and unguarded. I believe some of them are in Ubekistan or such.
So, yes, I agree that a country that is a threat to world peace due to military actions is a well studied scenario. But, no, a dynamic situation that covers many nations, many interests (including oil producers), and uncertain supply chains is new - delicate handling may be required.
Wow. You've convinced me to check out python. I've been an off and on perl coder, but usually stick to the C/C++/Java flavor of typed compiled languages.
Although I push for perl over some of the half baked solutions that get flown around here, I must admit that unless you're *very* comfortable with the language, your perl readability level is going to be crap. If you know you're gonna have to review of modify a noncoder's work, push for something else...
So thanks for the tip!
-RB
Can anybody tell me why we can't just run on an alcohol? If it's too weak, then why not add low levels of nitro[m]ethane to correct?
The alcohol can be readily created from crop surplus. Is nitromethane and other power boosters that expensive? Granted, the oil companies have nothing to gain from this. But the alcohol can be made from just about any half asses crop.
Yeah, appeasement really worked for the French in WWII.
:)
It looks like the world has learned its lesson about appeasement: They're all standing against us invading a foreign nation
...radio production is not the same as a professional recording studio.
Yeah, I noticed that too about the article. They only mention doing real studio tasks on linux by saying "we could have done them if we wanted to." Well, why didn't they?
A major reason why people I've tried to convert in the audio field won't is because of the lack of professional grade HD recording, sequencing, audio effects apps for linux.
If I can run unsigned code then palladium really is not about security but drm.
Please note that is signed apps "execute" data as code, then signing the binary executable may sill get you nothing. While things like TCPA and Palladium can verify an executable piece of code hasn't been changed, if that executable piece of code simply reads in any binary as data and runs (the allowable parts of) it, then you are - as I said - screwed.
TCPA, et al. is not mandatory access control (ala SElinux).
Yeah, people see the same evens through their own filter; but compare the US's view of itself (the white knight riding to the rescue of the world) with the rest of the world's view (a playground bully that steals kids lunch money and sits on them until they act the way he wants). This is an extreme difference.
What's most surprising to me is that each side is, for the most part, unaware of the other's view.