Rubberhose transparently and deniably encrypts disk data, minimising the effectiveness of warrants, coersive interrogations and other compulsive mechanims, such as U.K RIP legislation. Rubberhose differs from conventional disk encryption systems in that it has an advanced modular architecture, self-test suite, is more secure, portable, utilises information hiding (steganography / deniable cryptography), works with any file system and has source freely available. Currently supported ciphers are DES, 3DES, IDEA, RC5, RC6, Blowfish, Twofish and CAST.
Written by Julian Assange, Ralf P. Weinmann and Suelette Dreyfus
In some situations one cannot be paranoid enough - civil rights activists, environmentalists - and this talk by Jacob Appelbaum gives some perspective on the inadequacy of most ordinary approaches to encryption when confronted with a truly hostile adversary (such as many/most governments).
To clarify: I trust them to make aircraft. I don't trust them to implement security policy of this nature. The problems with it aren't related to Boeing's core competencies; the proposal has fundamental flaws in concept (which are frequently discussed, inter alia, on comp.risks) - no matter how good the nuts and bolts of implementation are.
I'm a frequent flyer who would prefer not to fly in any plane thus equipped.
This type of system is a perennial topic on comp.risks & is certainly not a panacea. It is not clear whether the system is any improvement, or whether it merely increases risk; and I don't trust Boeing to decide for us.
This article is infantile puffery, something that's obvious from the style.
Take non sequiturs such as "Windows may be unreliable, but it's hard to imagine it being as failure-prone as the kit which is out there already." This logic may suffice for a lightweight Register article but it's no way to justify picking the worst available consumer grade O/S over proven systems such as Solaris, OpenVMS, or other far more reliable alternatives.
The Reg ran a better article in 2004 - which actually quoted dissenting engineers (who were immediately fired, go figure).
'We're very interested in running Mac OS X in a virtual machine because it opens up a ton of interesting use cases, but until Apple changes its licensing policy, we prefer to not speculate about running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment,'
If some outside source could mess with this it would be devastating to the economy and the country...
You mean even worse than the inside interests who are short sightedly and selfinterestedly devastating it? Sheesh. Donate some of your excess naïvete to The United Way...
the Mac and Windows worlds had people running to the store to replace perfectly good machines.
Uh, no. That's not the case with OS X. New releases have almost always been faster than the previous one, on the same hardware (sometimes much faster - which is what improving software is all about, eh). OS X 10.4 runs quite happily on an old G3, including the 3D-accelerated UI (introduced 2002) which Windows claims Vista has (but only on the latest and most expensive cards, and if the moon is in the right phase, and so on).
Once again, Microsoft is several years late and more than a dollar short...
I think we can stop worrying once they're down to a reasonable 30% market share with a $20 product. But with they're attitude, and inherent criminality, we'll probably have to just shut them down. If Gates' mental state continues to unravel, we might even see him behind the bars he's earned so thoroughly...
Microsoft is just a manifestation of profound human weakness and limitation. Presumably as long as we are defective, imperfect creatures, we will not be free of such destructive and criminal institutions. But we can continue to resist!
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you could find a suit based on a stupider premise,
If I wanted to try, I might start here.
n/t
Why aren't Microsoft or Windows mentioned in the headline or summary, since they are the enablers of this entire phenomenon?
...you don't mind about the rest of the world peering over your shoulder once you've been trojan'd and keylogged to death.
Windows is a toy. If you don't like being pwn3d, use a serious system - Linux or OS X, BSD, Solaris 10 - anything else.
In some situations one cannot be paranoid enough - civil rights activists, environmentalists - and this talk by Jacob Appelbaum gives some perspective on the inadequacy of most ordinary approaches to encryption when confronted with a truly hostile adversary (such as many/most governments).
To clarify: I trust them to make aircraft. I don't trust them to implement security policy of this nature. The problems with it aren't related to Boeing's core competencies; the proposal has fundamental flaws in concept (which are frequently discussed, inter alia, on comp.risks) - no matter how good the nuts and bolts of implementation are.
over a million of other decisions when building the aircraft.
Yes, I do. And furthermore I don't see a contradiction in my position.
I'm a frequent flyer who would prefer not to fly in any plane thus equipped.
This type of system is a perennial topic on comp.risks & is certainly not a panacea. It is not clear whether the system is any improvement, or whether it merely increases risk; and I don't trust Boeing to decide for us.
Is that, at last, people can ask this question with a straight face. Now that's progress :-P
Mod parent down, -1 Clueless.
Sigh.
As Schwartz put it recently, there are two kinds of disk: Those that have failed, and those that are going to.
"How about a nice cup of Shut The Fuck Up About Linux..."
This article is infantile puffery, something that's obvious from the style.
Take non sequiturs such as "Windows may be unreliable, but it's hard to imagine it being as failure-prone as the kit which is out there already." This logic may suffice for a lightweight Register article but it's no way to justify picking the worst available consumer grade O/S over proven systems such as Solaris, OpenVMS, or other far more reliable alternatives.
The Reg ran a better article in 2004 - which actually quoted dissenting engineers (who were immediately fired, go figure).
Should we laugh, cry, or protest?
There'd be nothing left.
'We're very interested in running Mac OS X in a virtual machine because it opens up a ton of interesting use cases, but until Apple changes its licensing policy, we prefer to not speculate about running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment,'
Means: "we have it running in the lab."
If some outside source could mess with this it would be devastating to the economy and the country...
You mean even worse than the inside interests who are short sightedly and selfinterestedly devastating it? Sheesh. Donate some of your excess naïvete to The United Way...
When you're a country with a hammer, everything looks like a snowglobe, eh?
until that magical threading language (maybe c++1x) comes along
Studied Erlang much?
I just today noticed the announcement of XML::Tiny.
the Mac and Windows worlds had people running to the store to replace perfectly good machines.
Uh, no. That's not the case with OS X. New releases have almost always been faster than the previous one, on the same hardware (sometimes much faster - which is what improving software is all about, eh). OS X 10.4 runs quite happily on an old G3, including the 3D-accelerated UI (introduced 2002) which Windows claims Vista has (but only on the latest and most expensive cards, and if the moon is in the right phase, and so on).
Once again, Microsoft is several years late and more than a dollar short...
As is perfectly clear from the ridiculous Gates interview. He's inspired to make even bolder lies than usual...
I think we can stop worrying once they're down to a reasonable 30% market share with a $20 product. But with they're attitude, and inherent criminality, we'll probably have to just shut them down. If Gates' mental state continues to unravel, we might even see him behind the bars he's earned so thoroughly...
And send them here. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy really is your friend.
What is wrong with one of Apple's laptops? Guaranteed it comes with a more secure & generally superior O/S than anything Microsoft can ever produce.
Run Windows in a Parallels window, if you must...
I call it reputation laundering.
Microsoft is just a manifestation of profound human weakness and limitation. Presumably as long as we are defective, imperfect creatures, we will not be free of such destructive and criminal institutions. But we can continue to resist!