How do you come to the conclusion that "do not expect" is a refusal? The words chosen for statements are usually intentional, at least try to comprehend their meaning next time.
The majority of the signature has been the same for about 15 years, and its an exceptional troll detector. Trolls that attack people personally instead of arguing points are very easy to spot.
Yes, I detect you as a troll but decided to point out your inability to comprehend a very simple statement.
The first link the person posted is what I copied the quote from. All 4 articles are fine examples of the continuance of COINTELPRO, and pure propaganda (not that I expect better from the commonly complicit Washington Post). In the first article GP linked, I counted 3 blatant lies in the first paragraphs, and several intentionally misleading statements.
First paragraph
1. Apple created the encryption to thwart legal warrants. LIE, Apples encryption was intended to protect consumers, not thwart law enforcement.
2. Under the new operating system, however, Apple has devised a way to defeat lawful search warrants. LIE, Apples encryption does not defeat warrants. Apples encryption removes them as a middle man, but does not defeat the exercise of a warrant in any way shape or form.
3. “Unlike our competitors,” Apple’s new privacy policy boasts, “Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data.” LIE, Apple is not the only company developing and advertising user controlled encryption.
M-1. Warrants will go nowhere, as “it’s not technically feasible for [Apple] to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8.” Misleading. As stated above Apple removes itself as a middle man but does not make execution of warrants impossible.
M-2. Anyone with any iPhone can download the new warrant-thwarting operating system for free, and it comes automatically with the new iPhone 6. Misleading. Anyone with a supported Apple device can download and install any upgrade. Apple adding encryption did not change a well established practice.
The courts can not hold Apple in contempt, stop with the bullshit fear tactics.
We can demonstrate the Constitutionality of this with a safe lock analogy very easily.
The Constitution states exactly "Reasonable Search and Seizure". This means that a locksmith should try to open the safe door (at request and pay for services) if asked by the Government. If the owner reworked the lock or a very clever locksmith made the lock (which is exactly what encryption does) then the Locksmith can not be held liable for not being able to open the door. The cops have to try and break in to the door.
Further, if the owner of the safe has a booby trap causing the contents of the house to immediately incinerate when the door is force and the police have no evidence (which is again what Encryption does) that is not the Locksmith's fault.
In neither case can the Locksmith go to jail or be held liable for the lack of evidence.
I have already seen some of our Constitutionally challenged politicians trying to claim that encryption is equivalent to harboring, so sure the fight may come up. The analogy above easily demonstrates that it is not harboring. Assuming a fair Constitutional minded Judge this is a non-issue.
Exactly this! What is frightening in my opinion is that the Director of the FBI can be paraphrased as "Your Constitutional Rights are Above the Law". Before you say it, I agree he is not alone and numerous politicians should be banished for their attacks against our natural rights.
I don't really have anything against this, but will re-ask the question above. "What do you expect to happen with the data?" Agencies can't or won't deal with what they have today, so the benefactor and beneficiary's of this data is who?
Maybe it will begin to instill cynicism at a much younger age, as kids will see that when they submit the findings nothing happens. No clean up occurs, companies continue to receive more tax money for "clean up", and politicians continue to smile and laugh as their next reelection campaign is funded by those same companies they are pumping with tax payer money.
I don't mean to imply that as completely negative, it takes a whole lot of people being fed up with the system to change the system. I see this as a double edged sword however, and a lot of people that may have curiosity piqued will give up on both the corrupt system and science to boot. Psychologically it's very difficult to recover the enthusiasm for science once that occurs.
Absolute Bullshit. You added 5 minutes a week, every week, to the director, finance team, law team, marketing team, sales team, etc.. etc... And what did you gain in the process? The one IT guy can claim "I have an awesome dashboard" on Slashdot, because the rest of the IT team was fine with the old system.
Stop trying to exemplify your nonexistent business logic.
That 5 minutes of work never existed before an IT guy made a change. The IT guy made the change without considering and/or caring that it added extra work to people. That is the IT guy being inconsiderate and forcing people to do more work, not people being lazy.
You are just extending the same mind set. Why is what _you_ want more important than what someone else wants. Every position in my company uses data slightly differently. Admins want to know what is having problems and trouble shooting the right things, Finance needs reports to know whether they need to give rebates, marketing needs data to generate slides showing trends in performance, developers want to know if their latest patch is working (sometimes), etc... Sure, the admins and developers are probably more concerned with a dashboard like view which is constantly updating. The rest of the people want, and need, a static weekly report without having to go do something to get it.
When those automatic weekly reports get removed and replaced with manual steps, people tend to jump right to the "those people are just lazy" crap.
If you had read the article you would have noticed something obvious and glaring. Even if MS paid as much as this article claimed it does not include rebates and reductions which often show up years later.
During the third quarter of fiscal year 2011, we reached a settlement of a portion of an I.R.S. audit of tax years 2004 to 2006, which reduced our income tax expense by $461 million.
Showing me a selective summary document with no details gives me no confidence that it's factual. Showing that later they can receive 1/2 billion on a single issue demonstrates that money can be shuffled around to present an alternative reality (I.E. Propaganda).
If you laid off 10 workers and immediately hired 10 other workers matching what you need, I'd at least cut you some slack. Anyone working for you and seeing this would probably start looking for a new job and your productivity would drop. I'd actually be okay since you would be harming yourself in the long run.
A swap is not what this is, so the "I needed 10 mobile hardware guys so let 10 HTML5 guys go, I could not afford both" type issues. In essence, Microsoft is claiming that in the 1/2 year process of recruiting the "right" candidates they could not have retrained just 5.5% of the people they just fired to get what they needed in the same amount of time.
If MS had given those 18,000 people a choice to learn what was needed, even on their own time, 40-50% of the people they were going to can would have went and learned what was needed. No need then to spend 6 more months acclimating people to a new company, new policies, new locations, new systems.
So bullshit, it's all about saving longer term cash on cheaper H1Bs and has nothing to do with having "the right staff for the job".
I agree, but as with above this is a problem with eduction. If you teach people to use different passwords, and provide them a method of generating different (yet similar) passwords the problems are greatly reduced.
When was the last time you heard your security team remind people not to re-use passwords? This is of course in addition to training people on strong memorable passwords. If you can't remember, something is wrong.
As much as security experts enjoy hacking and finding vulnerabilities, their job extends way beyond those two things. If they are not good teachers they should be hiring someone that is to assist.
Standing alone sure, but the comment was not standing on its own. The comment was about Bill Gates who is a known liar (See the US vs. Microsoft Antitrust cases for easy to validate examples) and made his fortune on thievery, manipulation, and lies. Ignoring known immoral behavior in determining someone's "character" would be asinine correct?
To further believe that an obvious narcissist would do anything for purely altruistic purposes is also asinine correct?
So the statement that was made does not equate to your gross oversimplification. The statement made was that roughly that "Bill Gates is not altruistic and/or of high moral character".
Simply, people can no longer remember passwords good enough to reliably defend against dictionary attacks, and are much more secure if they choose a password too complicated to remember and then write it down.
Bull spit. The problem is that people are using dictionary words in their passwords to begin with, and there are surely viable alternatives which are absolutely able to provide memorable strong passwords without dictionary words (company names, acronyms, usernames, etc..).
As with many other perceived problems, a lack of education and complacency are the real culprits here. Instead of blaming users for bad passwords, put the blame on executives that refuse to educate people, and further refuse to enforce policies that prevent bad practices.
I have written and enforced numerous policies and trained people on exactly this issue. I have discussed this issue on this site numerous times, at least once within the last few months. You can search the archives. If you don't want free information, PM me and we can make arrangements so that you can pay me to come train your staff including your Security teams. I'll even customize my slide show and put your company name in the slides:O.
If people actually maintain the training and enforce the policies, issues with brute force attacks are massively reduced. Nothing is fool proof since real brute force attacks still occur, but 99% of the attacks are script kiddie dictionary scans.
If you incorrectly believe that _everyone_ pays the US 35% corporate tax sure, the US has the highest corporate tax rate. You would have to be extremely ignorant or gullible to believe that anyone pays the base rate. 70,000 pages of tax code are currently ensuring that anyone that can afford an a loophole has a loophole.
If we had any legitimacy in the Government, I would expect the Government to be asking why Microsoft just terminated 18,000 employees (including no-competes preventing their hire at MS or anywhere else) and is now requesting 1,000 more foreign workers.
For those that claim that H1Bs have nothing to do with wages, I'd ask the same exact question.
Cutting off the links for raw links probably makes sense assuming that length is the limiting factor, not just reducing the tail (often the most descriptive and important, don't want those accidental goatse pics). I'm assuming anchored tags still work? We can check with your link here.
Apologies for not mentioning this as well. You did, just now, do a much better job of conveying the problem without the implied negative context toward Mothers and Families.
High paying careers are usually very demanding and many women think focusing on getting married and having children should be a higher priority. That was not a judgement but simply pointing out a major factor in the statistics.
Is a very different statement from what you stated previously.
Instead of trying to push for legal change, you guys should push for a cultural change where women don't pressure other women to get married young and start having babies.
My point was that it is cultural pressure among women to primarily focus on marriage and babies that leads to narrower career opportunities, not some grand sexist conspiracy.
Did a Gremlin knock you out, type those statements, and press submit while you were out cold? More likely, you are attempting to make a real statement can't or won't accept that the root cause you portray is absolutely wrong. Repeatedly claiming that career is more important than family does not make your statement true, it means that you have a warped sense of priority.
You should really try and read for yourself instead of passing blame to others, who actually read what you wrote and responded in kind. If you don't realize what you are writing, don't do it. As stated, reevaluate your position without the assumption that being a mother and having a family is bad and try again.
My reading comprehension is just fine, it is your perspective which is broken (in fairness it's not just you, you just happened to invoke a response). It was your text I quoted the first time, and you state the same thing again in different terms again in this post.
If the premise is broken the conclusion is also broken, that is the way logic works.
Stop trying to claim that being married and having children is a bad thing, then re-evaluate your position.
Instead of trying to push for legal change, you guys should push for a cultural change where women don't pressure other women to get married young and start having babies.
Because the only thing that matters in the world is a "career" and "money"? Wholly fuck you need to really evaluate what life is about and gain some perspective.
I'm not against women having a career mind you, I'm against this bullshit that life is all about a career and money. Fact: If society has no mothers, fathers, or families, society dies. Fact: Parents are the biggest influences on their children. Governments don't make children that have concern for their neighbors and work towards bettering the world, parents do.
Stop trying to minimize the importance of being a parent and actually attempt to use your brain.
After you do that, think really really hard about the statement I quoted. It's okay for you to pressure them to have a job and career? So pressuring people is not an issue to you, it's that you don't believe that parenting is important. My, what great ethics and logic you demonstrate. That last sentence is sarcasm and disdain, just in case you didn't catch it.
To the first part I mean the Kiosk features where an admin can lock down things like the Screen saver settings, background image, power settings, etc... This obviously prevents users from disabling settings like screen lock requiring a password, ensuring that your policies are met (E.G. 5 minute idle time), forces warnings and backgrounds to display without allowing users to disable or change them.
To the second part, allowing "root" to login to Gnome with a full desktop. Surely a bad idea on an internet facing desktop, but required for installation and configuration of certain CAD and CAE applications, especially those generating 3D stereoscopic displays but not limited to the same. I have not used Gnome in the last couple years, but last I checked it required hacks to allow Root to login.
My point was, and is, that there are options between 4 and 40 characters so you are not stuck with one or the other as you implied. In fairness, you may not have intentionally made this implication, but nevertheless it was made.
I agree a 4 number PIN is a horrible idea if you are worried at all about security. A 9 character PIN is going to be much harder to break into and still easy enough to manage. My screen is auto-locking at 5 minutes and I have the option of pressing a very fast access button to immediately lock the phone at a touch.
Such sweeping generalizations. Servers may not have desktop GUIs installed, but we have plenty of people running Linux as a desktop for their workstation with a VM running Windows if they need a Windows only application.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you come to the conclusion that "do not expect" is a refusal? The words chosen for statements are usually intentional, at least try to comprehend their meaning next time.
The majority of the signature has been the same for about 15 years, and its an exceptional troll detector. Trolls that attack people personally instead of arguing points are very easy to spot.
Yes, I detect you as a troll but decided to point out your inability to comprehend a very simple statement.
The first link the person posted is what I copied the quote from. All 4 articles are fine examples of the continuance of COINTELPRO, and pure propaganda (not that I expect better from the commonly complicit Washington Post). In the first article GP linked, I counted 3 blatant lies in the first paragraphs, and several intentionally misleading statements.
First paragraph
1. Apple created the encryption to thwart legal warrants.
LIE, Apples encryption was intended to protect consumers, not thwart law enforcement.
2. Under the new operating system, however, Apple has devised a way to defeat lawful search warrants.
LIE, Apples encryption does not defeat warrants. Apples encryption removes them as a middle man, but does not defeat the exercise of a warrant in any way shape or form.
3. “Unlike our competitors,” Apple’s new privacy policy boasts, “Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data.”
LIE, Apple is not the only company developing and advertising user controlled encryption.
M-1. Warrants will go nowhere, as “it’s not technically feasible for [Apple] to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8.”
Misleading. As stated above Apple removes itself as a middle man but does not make execution of warrants impossible.
M-2. Anyone with any iPhone can download the new warrant-thwarting operating system for free, and it comes automatically with the new iPhone 6.
Misleading. Anyone with a supported Apple device can download and install any upgrade. Apple adding encryption did not change a well established practice.
The courts can not hold Apple in contempt, stop with the bullshit fear tactics.
We can demonstrate the Constitutionality of this with a safe lock analogy very easily.
The Constitution states exactly "Reasonable Search and Seizure". This means that a locksmith should try to open the safe door (at request and pay for services) if asked by the Government. If the owner reworked the lock or a very clever locksmith made the lock (which is exactly what encryption does) then the Locksmith can not be held liable for not being able to open the door. The cops have to try and break in to the door.
Further, if the owner of the safe has a booby trap causing the contents of the house to immediately incinerate when the door is force and the police have no evidence (which is again what Encryption does) that is not the Locksmith's fault.
In neither case can the Locksmith go to jail or be held liable for the lack of evidence.
I have already seen some of our Constitutionally challenged politicians trying to claim that encryption is equivalent to harboring, so sure the fight may come up. The analogy above easily demonstrates that it is not harboring. Assuming a fair Constitutional minded Judge this is a non-issue.
Apple has announced that it has designed its new operating system, iOS8, to thwart lawful search warrants.
The piece opens with a blatant lie. Here is your Logic lesson for the day. "If the premise is a lie, so is the conclusion."
Don't waste your time with propaganda, we are smarter than that.
Exactly this! What is frightening in my opinion is that the Director of the FBI can be paraphrased as "Your Constitutional Rights are Above the Law". Before you say it, I agree he is not alone and numerous politicians should be banished for their attacks against our natural rights.
I don't really have anything against this, but will re-ask the question above. "What do you expect to happen with the data?" Agencies can't or won't deal with what they have today, so the benefactor and beneficiary's of this data is who?
Maybe it will begin to instill cynicism at a much younger age, as kids will see that when they submit the findings nothing happens. No clean up occurs, companies continue to receive more tax money for "clean up", and politicians continue to smile and laugh as their next reelection campaign is funded by those same companies they are pumping with tax payer money.
I don't mean to imply that as completely negative, it takes a whole lot of people being fed up with the system to change the system. I see this as a double edged sword however, and a lot of people that may have curiosity piqued will give up on both the corrupt system and science to boot. Psychologically it's very difficult to recover the enthusiasm for science once that occurs.
If you don't get it, you don't watch Southpark.
Absolute Bullshit. You added 5 minutes a week, every week, to the director, finance team, law team, marketing team, sales team, etc.. etc... And what did you gain in the process? The one IT guy can claim "I have an awesome dashboard" on Slashdot, because the rest of the IT team was fine with the old system.
Stop trying to exemplify your nonexistent business logic.
That 5 minutes of work never existed before an IT guy made a change. The IT guy made the change without considering and/or caring that it added extra work to people. That is the IT guy being inconsiderate and forcing people to do more work, not people being lazy.
You are just extending the same mind set. Why is what _you_ want more important than what someone else wants. Every position in my company uses data slightly differently. Admins want to know what is having problems and trouble shooting the right things, Finance needs reports to know whether they need to give rebates, marketing needs data to generate slides showing trends in performance, developers want to know if their latest patch is working (sometimes), etc... Sure, the admins and developers are probably more concerned with a dashboard like view which is constantly updating. The rest of the people want, and need, a static weekly report without having to go do something to get it.
When those automatic weekly reports get removed and replaced with manual steps, people tend to jump right to the "those people are just lazy" crap.
If you had read the article you would have noticed something obvious and glaring. Even if MS paid as much as this article claimed it does not include rebates and reductions which often show up years later.
During the third quarter of fiscal year 2011, we reached a settlement of a portion of an I.R.S. audit of tax years 2004 to 2006, which reduced our income tax expense by $461 million.
Showing me a selective summary document with no details gives me no confidence that it's factual. Showing that later they can receive 1/2 billion on a single issue demonstrates that money can be shuffled around to present an alternative reality (I.E. Propaganda).
If you laid off 10 workers and immediately hired 10 other workers matching what you need, I'd at least cut you some slack. Anyone working for you and seeing this would probably start looking for a new job and your productivity would drop. I'd actually be okay since you would be harming yourself in the long run.
A swap is not what this is, so the "I needed 10 mobile hardware guys so let 10 HTML5 guys go, I could not afford both" type issues. In essence, Microsoft is claiming that in the 1/2 year process of recruiting the "right" candidates they could not have retrained just 5.5% of the people they just fired to get what they needed in the same amount of time.
If MS had given those 18,000 people a choice to learn what was needed, even on their own time, 40-50% of the people they were going to can would have went and learned what was needed. No need then to spend 6 more months acclimating people to a new company, new policies, new locations, new systems.
So bullshit, it's all about saving longer term cash on cheaper H1Bs and has nothing to do with having "the right staff for the job".
I agree, but as with above this is a problem with eduction. If you teach people to use different passwords, and provide them a method of generating different (yet similar) passwords the problems are greatly reduced.
When was the last time you heard your security team remind people not to re-use passwords? This is of course in addition to training people on strong memorable passwords. If you can't remember, something is wrong.
As much as security experts enjoy hacking and finding vulnerabilities, their job extends way beyond those two things. If they are not good teachers they should be hiring someone that is to assist.
Standing alone sure, but the comment was not standing on its own. The comment was about Bill Gates who is a known liar (See the US vs. Microsoft Antitrust cases for easy to validate examples) and made his fortune on thievery, manipulation, and lies. Ignoring known immoral behavior in determining someone's "character" would be asinine correct?
To further believe that an obvious narcissist would do anything for purely altruistic purposes is also asinine correct?
So the statement that was made does not equate to your gross oversimplification. The statement made was that roughly that "Bill Gates is not altruistic and/or of high moral character".
Simply, people can no longer remember passwords good enough to reliably defend against dictionary attacks, and are much more secure if they choose a password too complicated to remember and then write it down.
Bull spit. The problem is that people are using dictionary words in their passwords to begin with, and there are surely viable alternatives which are absolutely able to provide memorable strong passwords without dictionary words (company names, acronyms, usernames, etc..).
As with many other perceived problems, a lack of education and complacency are the real culprits here. Instead of blaming users for bad passwords, put the blame on executives that refuse to educate people, and further refuse to enforce policies that prevent bad practices.
I have written and enforced numerous policies and trained people on exactly this issue. I have discussed this issue on this site numerous times, at least once within the last few months. You can search the archives. If you don't want free information, PM me and we can make arrangements so that you can pay me to come train your staff including your Security teams. I'll even customize my slide show and put your company name in the slides :O.
If people actually maintain the training and enforce the policies, issues with brute force attacks are massively reduced. Nothing is fool proof since real brute force attacks still occur, but 99% of the attacks are script kiddie dictionary scans.
If you incorrectly believe that _everyone_ pays the US 35% corporate tax sure, the US has the highest corporate tax rate. You would have to be extremely ignorant or gullible to believe that anyone pays the base rate. 70,000 pages of tax code are currently ensuring that anyone that can afford an a loophole has a loophole.
If we had any legitimacy in the Government, I would expect the Government to be asking why Microsoft just terminated 18,000 employees (including no-competes preventing their hire at MS or anywhere else) and is now requesting 1,000 more foreign workers.
For those that claim that H1Bs have nothing to do with wages, I'd ask the same exact question.
Cutting off the links for raw links probably makes sense assuming that length is the limiting factor, not just reducing the tail (often the most descriptive and important, don't want those accidental goatse pics). I'm assuming anchored tags still work? We can check with your link here.
Apologies for not mentioning this as well. You did, just now, do a much better job of conveying the problem without the implied negative context toward Mothers and Families.
High paying careers are usually very demanding and many women think focusing on getting married and having children should be a higher priority. That was not a judgement but simply pointing out a major factor in the statistics.
Is a very different statement from what you stated previously.
Really? You never said these things?
Instead of trying to push for legal change, you guys should push for a cultural change where women don't pressure other women to get married young and start having babies.
My point was that it is cultural pressure among women to primarily focus on marriage and babies that leads to narrower career opportunities, not some grand sexist conspiracy.
Did a Gremlin knock you out, type those statements, and press submit while you were out cold? More likely, you are attempting to make a real statement can't or won't accept that the root cause you portray is absolutely wrong. Repeatedly claiming that career is more important than family does not make your statement true, it means that you have a warped sense of priority.
You should really try and read for yourself instead of passing blame to others, who actually read what you wrote and responded in kind. If you don't realize what you are writing, don't do it. As stated, reevaluate your position without the assumption that being a mother and having a family is bad and try again.
My reading comprehension is just fine, it is your perspective which is broken (in fairness it's not just you, you just happened to invoke a response). It was your text I quoted the first time, and you state the same thing again in different terms again in this post.
If the premise is broken the conclusion is also broken, that is the way logic works.
Stop trying to claim that being married and having children is a bad thing, then re-evaluate your position.
Instead of trying to push for legal change, you guys should push for a cultural change where women don't pressure other women to get married young and start having babies.
Because the only thing that matters in the world is a "career" and "money"? Wholly fuck you need to really evaluate what life is about and gain some perspective.
I'm not against women having a career mind you, I'm against this bullshit that life is all about a career and money. Fact: If society has no mothers, fathers, or families, society dies. Fact: Parents are the biggest influences on their children. Governments don't make children that have concern for their neighbors and work towards bettering the world, parents do.
Stop trying to minimize the importance of being a parent and actually attempt to use your brain.
After you do that, think really really hard about the statement I quoted. It's okay for you to pressure them to have a job and career? So pressuring people is not an issue to you, it's that you don't believe that parenting is important. My, what great ethics and logic you demonstrate. That last sentence is sarcasm and disdain, just in case you didn't catch it.
You missed the "if" operator in my last sentence :)
To the first part I mean the Kiosk features where an admin can lock down things like the Screen saver settings, background image, power settings, etc... This obviously prevents users from disabling settings like screen lock requiring a password, ensuring that your policies are met (E.G. 5 minute idle time), forces warnings and backgrounds to display without allowing users to disable or change them.
To the second part, allowing "root" to login to Gnome with a full desktop. Surely a bad idea on an internet facing desktop, but required for installation and configuration of certain CAD and CAE applications, especially those generating 3D stereoscopic displays but not limited to the same. I have not used Gnome in the last couple years, but last I checked it required hacks to allow Root to login.
My point was, and is, that there are options between 4 and 40 characters so you are not stuck with one or the other as you implied. In fairness, you may not have intentionally made this implication, but nevertheless it was made.
I agree a 4 number PIN is a horrible idea if you are worried at all about security. A 9 character PIN is going to be much harder to break into and still easy enough to manage. My screen is auto-locking at 5 minutes and I have the option of pressing a very fast access button to immediately lock the phone at a touch.
Such sweeping generalizations. Servers may not have desktop GUIs installed, but we have plenty of people running Linux as a desktop for their workstation with a VM running Windows if they need a Windows only application.