1. You're a government. 2. You have leverage over the entity in question. 3. Your own legal system allows it.
Without 2, you've got nothing, but the case in question is pretty clearly targetting providers who might move information. Not those that don't operate in the US at all.
On the other hand, it's only becoming precedent in an era where the common person actually has the ability to move things(specifically data) overseas with ease.
Going to take a position I know will be unpopular in this thread, but:
The leverage they have is that you're accused of committing a crime within the borders of the US, and evidence you have access to can be demanded under a warrant that covers details related to that crime. Their physical inability to seize it by force(because it's in another jurisdiction) is about as relevant as their inability to unlock your bank safe. Either way they can punish you for not turning over evidence that is covered by the warrant.
Because, and this is important, jargon familiarity isn't always equivalent to available insight. It's what popular culture uses as fictional markers for insight, but the reality is that not only is expertise a continuum, but it often involves ideas from multiple realms of knowledge.
Always fucking expand the first instance of your acronym in your summary. Always.
Many of have absolutely nothing to do with Enterprise resource planning in our day-to-day lives. A lot of us don't care about a strategic business unit. Most slashdotters are in the field of making software, not babbling almost-but-not-quite-meaningless business jargon about software.
I'm not an industrial/mechanical/aerospace engineer.
Are there any existing manufacturing processes that allow the creation of a metal gradient of this sort? Is this unique to 3d printed constructions?
I've got enough of an understanding of statics to grasp how it might be useful to transition from sturdier heavier components to lighter more fragile materials, so I could see how if this was new, it'd be revolutionary.
Disney's past their peak awfulness of the late 1990s and early 2000s, where milking every IP they had for maximum profit at the expense of any and all artistic credibility was a primary goal, and it's been multiple years since they last invented a pop-star by manipulatively marketing them at kids.
This is actually a much better way of framing what I was coming here to say.
They're relying on the fact that big success stories are big to continue a narrative that encourages development targeting mobile platforms. It's every bit a bubble, where people see only the positive signs of the market in the news.
Now the reality is starting to set in(and it's not just App Store, Play Store has the same problems), and serious "investors"(developers investing time in money in app development), are pulling out. The next step of a bubble is the "pop" where everyone realizes there's not much of a market left, and flees.
And the thing is, when you're the government of a country, you can bust down every door, pull the mac address, look at the routing table, and head to the next door to bust down. It goes even faster when every ISP is freely complicit(they are in the US, China, Russia, and anywhere else notably stompy).
Okay. It goes like this: 1. I acknowledged that my points didn't invalidate what they were trying to say 2. They purposefully drew a parallel to a failed technology. This comparison naturally suggests a sub-textual argument that the failure was due to the alluded reason. This wasn't the intended point(see #1) but it was nonetheless an argument by implication. Clarifying this distinction can help to identify a more appropriate parallel. 3. You really need to consider how dedicated you are to defending that notion, because it's a really inane point to lock into as important and beyond criticism. No argument by metaphor is going to be flawless, ever.
This argument contains a number of problems, none of which completely invalidate what you're trying to say:
1. Concorde wasn't discontinued due to passenger safety risks. It was expensive to buy, expensive to fly, and expensive to maintain. 2. If a severe accident caused by an autonomous car happened today, right now, 2 or 3 even, it would still have a substantially better average safety to mile driven record against the average driver. Right now it's beating out good drivers and tying exceptional drivers.
I wonder how feasible it would be to modify tor, or maybe make a tor version 2 protocol so that the onion layers are determined packet by packet, instead of by the stream.
I think that might fall apart at the exit node, since expecting the server to receive response packets from 2 different IPs isn't TCP/IP compliant. You could certainly build sites that work with that expectation, but it would essentially require all layers to be designed to support TOR.
Tragedy of the commons. If you're the person who broke Tor, you're(temporarily) the king of blackhats. Who cares that it screws over all the other blackhats. They'd screw you over just as fast.
Or bandwidth. Or visitors. Or intern-connections. There's a lot of room for serious damage from a lack of security, and not all of it is data theft.
People using your server as a spambot is bad. People infecting your sites visitors with malware is bad. People jumping to a different, more secure system from your server is bad.
We tend to notice the data theft issues most these days, because a lot of companies keep a lot of sensitive data, so a Target credit card hijack is tremendously bad and newsworthy.
But that doesn't mean other classes of security risk don't exist.
Not just because plenty of things are run by stupid people, but also because otherwise smart people can have pretty damned important blind spots. And other IT people have been talked out of it by their clients just like you're letting happen.
Whether it's common or not has no bearing on whether it's a good idea.
The only question you need to ask them is weather they're willing to accept the quantified risks from having exposed systems.
Slashdot Mirror
That evidence can't actually be used without charging you.
You're going to have to accept that the world is at least a little run by de facto power.
Here's how it works:
1. You're a government.
2. You have leverage over the entity in question.
3. Your own legal system allows it.
Without 2, you've got nothing, but the case in question is pretty clearly targetting providers who might move information. Not those that don't operate in the US at all.
On the other hand, it's only becoming precedent in an era where the common person actually has the ability to move things(specifically data) overseas with ease.
Unfortunately, no. Jurisdiction for the crime isn't the same as jurisdiction for evidence.
Going to take a position I know will be unpopular in this thread, but:
The leverage they have is that you're accused of committing a crime within the borders of the US, and evidence you have access to can be demanded under a warrant that covers details related to that crime. Their physical inability to seize it by force(because it's in another jurisdiction) is about as relevant as their inability to unlock your bank safe. Either way they can punish you for not turning over evidence that is covered by the warrant.
Point ceded.
Because, and this is important, jargon familiarity isn't always equivalent to available insight. It's what popular culture uses as fictional markers for insight, but the reality is that not only is expertise a continuum, but it often involves ideas from multiple realms of knowledge.
No, I can just use context to realize it's mostly irrelevant to the actual question.
Always fucking expand the first instance of your acronym in your summary. Always.
Many of have absolutely nothing to do with Enterprise resource planning in our day-to-day lives. A lot of us don't care about a strategic business unit. Most slashdotters are in the field of making software, not babbling almost-but-not-quite-meaningless business jargon about software.
I'm not an industrial/mechanical/aerospace engineer.
Are there any existing manufacturing processes that allow the creation of a metal gradient of this sort? Is this unique to 3d printed constructions?
I've got enough of an understanding of statics to grasp how it might be useful to transition from sturdier heavier components to lighter more fragile materials, so I could see how if this was new, it'd be revolutionary.
Disney's past their peak awfulness of the late 1990s and early 2000s, where milking every IP they had for maximum profit at the expense of any and all artistic credibility was a primary goal, and it's been multiple years since they last invented a pop-star by manipulatively marketing them at kids.
This is actually a much better way of framing what I was coming here to say.
They're relying on the fact that big success stories are big to continue a narrative that encourages development targeting mobile platforms. It's every bit a bubble, where people see only the positive signs of the market in the news.
Now the reality is starting to set in(and it's not just App Store, Play Store has the same problems), and serious "investors"(developers investing time in money in app development), are pulling out. The next step of a bubble is the "pop" where everyone realizes there's not much of a market left, and flees.
And the thing is, when you're the government of a country, you can bust down every door, pull the mac address, look at the routing table, and head to the next door to bust down. It goes even faster when every ISP is freely complicit(they are in the US, China, Russia, and anywhere else notably stompy).
Right, slow people.
Okay. It goes like this:
1. I acknowledged that my points didn't invalidate what they were trying to say
2. They purposefully drew a parallel to a failed technology. This comparison naturally suggests a sub-textual argument that the failure was due to the alluded reason. This wasn't the intended point(see #1) but it was nonetheless an argument by implication. Clarifying this distinction can help to identify a more appropriate parallel.
3. You really need to consider how dedicated you are to defending that notion, because it's a really inane point to lock into as important and beyond criticism. No argument by metaphor is going to be flawless, ever.
Oh, I forgive you for that. You're just a shitty human being and apparently inclined to never overcome that. Not everyone can be a decent person.
This argument contains a number of problems, none of which completely invalidate what you're trying to say:
1. Concorde wasn't discontinued due to passenger safety risks. It was expensive to buy, expensive to fly, and expensive to maintain.
2. If a severe accident caused by an autonomous car happened today, right now, 2 or 3 even, it would still have a substantially better average safety to mile driven record against the average driver. Right now it's beating out good drivers and tying exceptional drivers.
I wonder how feasible it would be to modify tor, or maybe make a tor version 2 protocol so that the onion layers are determined packet by packet, instead of by the stream.
I think that might fall apart at the exit node, since expecting the server to receive response packets from 2 different IPs isn't TCP/IP compliant. You could certainly build sites that work with that expectation, but it would essentially require all layers to be designed to support TOR.
Tragedy of the commons. If you're the person who broke Tor, you're(temporarily) the king of blackhats. Who cares that it screws over all the other blackhats. They'd screw you over just as fast.
But I have my doubts about about technological fixes to the jackboot/battering-ram/nightstick vulnerability.
Or bandwidth. Or visitors. Or intern-connections. There's a lot of room for serious damage from a lack of security, and not all of it is data theft.
People using your server as a spambot is bad.
People infecting your sites visitors with malware is bad.
People jumping to a different, more secure system from your server is bad.
We tend to notice the data theft issues most these days, because a lot of companies keep a lot of sensitive data, so a Target credit card hijack is tremendously bad and newsworthy.
But that doesn't mean other classes of security risk don't exist.
Also: how stupid am I to use 2 different spellings of whether in one post?
It's not like I was paying extra attention to the first one.
I always forget it's zero indexed.
Also, thanks to the reminder, I've decided that "zillion" most likely is equal to "thousand".
Not just because plenty of things are run by stupid people, but also because otherwise smart people can have pretty damned important blind spots. And other IT people have been talked out of it by their clients just like you're letting happen.
Whether it's common or not has no bearing on whether it's a good idea.
The only question you need to ask them is weather they're willing to accept the quantified risks from having exposed systems.
You're right, please support HR-27-1337, placing a 200% tax on politicizing random science discussions.
Try the milky way diet plan. You too can lose 1.3 quadrillion solar masses in just one month trying the Milky Way(TM) diet.
Check out these before and after shots: you can't even see the dark matter anymore.