I could see part of your point if all leo's were professional outfits like the one the cop from Ohio above mentioned. The sad truth of the matter is, governments, government agencies, and even courts across this land are absolutely rife with corruption. Not so ironically, it is the Federal government that is responsible for this. Grist for another mill, except to note, just as an example, the DOJ's own DEA and it's War on Some Drugs, have directly undermined a wide variety of public and private institions both in the US and abroad and generated a whole new sophisticated and well-heeled class of criminals, slowly being absorbed into the mainstream of respectability and government contracting.
Under such circumstances it is all too common, particularly in local jurisdictions, to see legal niceties such as those against admitting uncorroborated hearsay, sheep speculation, unsupported assertions, and known false evidence. I used to be a babe in the woods like you seem to be about these matters. Believe me, my eyes have been opened. I know better now. Anybody can get screwed over, particularly the innocent. I think that covers the other part of your point.
Finally, some laws are just so immoral or unjust, it's obvious to any rational person they were intended to be broken. Follow the money, etc., Professional LEO's should get political and lobby against them, or hand in their badges. In the meantime, just don't fucking get caught.
This is just Poindexter's TIA project come back to life under a DOJ aegis. Similiar to the M.A.T.R.I.X project, which has been foundering best I can tell (due to the reluctance of a few recalcitrant state AG's, among them Thurbert Baker of GA. The voters showed their appreciation by not reelecting him, as I recall.) All it takes it that one last fairly trivial step of tieing OneDOJ in with existing corporate and government medical, credit, property, web-surfing, library checkouts, magazine subscriptions, banking, purchasing, down to how much coffee you drink etc. records and you have the ultimate bureaucrat, extortion artist, or social engineer's wet dream, all on a patrol cop's laptop.
The thing is, as you point out, the concept is not new. Re Godwin, I keep saying Hitler actually won that war, and some people even understand this, but this scope and level of detail was in fact pioneered by the Catholic Church, and beloved of clergy down through the ages, which (excuse me while I indulge in sarcasm) explains the advanced state of modern civilization.
In the law enforcement/intel arena, this level of interjurisdictional cooperation is not new either, at least for select lucky individuals. That's troubling enough, but the real problem here is putting tools like this in the hands of any greedy underpaid beat cop with notions of grandeur, or other nosy, busybody public employee or corrupt bureaucrat with influence to push or insider info to sell. You might in that case go ahead and give mobsters, bounty hunters, collection agencies, private dicks, etc. the same info, because they're going to get it under the table anyway. Under those circumstances I can only say "Hack the planet!" and release to all, open-sourced. Let the chips fall where they may. I've got nothing to hide. Have you, Mr. Police Chief, or Ms. DOJ TLA field agent? Or, hell yes, you, Mr. Pres., or you Sen. Snort? Something to think about, eh?
Yeah, and thenwe got the Myarc Geneve, too, which used the V9938 MSX2 video chip. Ironic you can run Tomy Tutor games on the Geneve, since it has the same CPU, using the 9918A modes of the V9938. Now if I can find the time for a Z80 emulator for the 9995...
eg. "Our goal, and our mission, is to help Lebanese citizens and Lebanese businesses not only recover, but to flourish, because we believe strongly in the concept of a democracy in Lebanon."
I really dread reading the newspaper anymore. One morning I'm going find that someone has come out four-square for the concept of a democracy in the U.S.A.
This is incredibly useful and worthwhile research, but I fear it would be totally lost on DHS if it were left in their hands. Just the second-order effects of self-reference, not just exposing the Prez' badly parsed horse-puckey, they couldn't handle. Too much paperwork:-) No, this should be open-source, open standards, and distributed, not centalized. Only thing the State could do to help would be to waive copyright and database aggregation rights. Grant fair use license. Hell, abolish copyright and patents, but I digress. I wager "homeland security" would be much more assured, though.
Ask Jim Bell. Ask Jim Goad. Ask Sherman Austin. Etc.
Tim May used to say all the time, back before the cypherpunks list pretty much dissolved, that if your sekrit comm network can't withstand subpeonas and jackboots on a kiddie porn (or tax evasion, or terrorist conspiracy, or money-laundering, or dope-dealing, etc.) warrant, then it is hardly secure for anything else, or anonymous. People want to eat their cake and have it too, but like another man said, TANSTAAFL. At least the Tor project hasn't fallen for the trap waiting for Freenet, currently enmired in the "darknet" fallacy.
You either believe in the 1st Amendment or you don't. There is no middle road here. That is a fantasy and rationalization the courts came up with.
The local ILEC's business office here used to prominently display warnings about 900 numbers, and the kind ladies there will still sometimes thoughtfully install toll-blocking without your even asking.:-) Still, those comfy new air-conditioned offices were paid for in no small measure by phone and webcam, er, "sex".
This is basic suitology, though, folks. Suits do not, contrary to popular belief, actually give a rat's ass about money, as long as their job is not affected. They are whipped dogs to begin with. What they care about is SECURITY. Sony or somebody made noises, probably about something else entirely, edicts got issued from on high, and the pissants in the trenches apply them without discernment. No way are they going to stick their head on the chopping block, even a non-existent one, and take the fall for a judgement call that MIGHT, even if only hypothetically, get PayPal, er E-bay, sued.
The best thing is to switch to e-gold or some other actual online exchange system akin to real money. Unless you know someone higher up at Ebay with some cojones, which unfortunately is not likely-I mean, Ebay is still pretty cool and all, but you could see the handwriting on the wall years ago when they jumped through the hoops for Giuliani et al. and banned firearms sales. The bureaucracy is firmly entrenched there. The SEC and FedGov require it.
Unless I'm hearing her wrong, Rutkowska is only claiming that to the extent the underlying virtualiztion is complete, the existence of the hypervisor is undetectable, in principle, to code running under it. Only if you break out of that closed system, maybe by way of Chaumian double-blinding to an external third-party or agent by some other means opaque to the hypervisor (an issue I'm looking into right now) or, as has been mentioned, external (to restate myself) timing references, which are suspect under a complete virtualization *unless* there is some opacity wrt the hypervisor's view, can you (meaining in this context, the virtualized code. Again this has been pointed out explicitly by Rutkowska.) guarantee that you aren't being diddled.
In practice, there are always implementation isssues, and Liquroi is not to be faulted for pointing them out, but I don't see that he has sucessfully countered her main thesis.
I should hasten to add that the issue Rutkowska raises should not be considered any kind of argument against virtualization. Virtualization implementors may want to consider security cutouts at some point, though. In the end, astute users are going to be the court of last resort. Scary thought, that. (I fix PeeCees to put bread on the table right now, and the tales I could tell about lusers...well, I'm sure I'm not alone there.)
Assertation is an unfamiliar concept I have to look into. Sounds just a little bit implausible to me, but then so does Kant.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right, citizen, think them happy thoughts.
I could see part of your point if all leo's were professional outfits like the one the cop from Ohio above mentioned. The sad truth of the matter is, governments, government agencies, and even courts across this land are absolutely rife with corruption. Not so ironically, it is the Federal government that is responsible for this. Grist for another mill, except to note, just as an example, the DOJ's own DEA and it's War on Some Drugs, have directly undermined a wide variety of public and private institions both in the US and abroad and generated a whole new sophisticated and well-heeled class of criminals, slowly being absorbed into the mainstream of respectability and government contracting.
Under such circumstances it is all too common, particularly in local jurisdictions, to see legal niceties such as those against admitting uncorroborated hearsay, sheep speculation, unsupported assertions, and known false evidence. I used to be a babe in the woods like you seem to be about these matters. Believe me, my eyes have been opened. I know better now. Anybody can get screwed over, particularly the innocent. I think that covers the other part of your point.
Finally, some laws are just so immoral or unjust, it's obvious to any rational person they were intended to be broken. Follow the money, etc., Professional LEO's should get political and lobby against them, or hand in their badges. In the meantime, just don't fucking get caught.
Have a nice day, Citizen.
This is just Poindexter's TIA project come back to life under a DOJ aegis. Similiar to the M.A.T.R.I.X project, which has been foundering best I can tell (due to the reluctance of a few recalcitrant state AG's, among them Thurbert Baker of GA. The voters showed their appreciation by not reelecting him, as I recall.) All it takes it that one last fairly trivial step of tieing OneDOJ in with existing corporate and government medical, credit, property, web-surfing, library checkouts, magazine subscriptions, banking, purchasing, down to how much coffee you drink etc. records and you have the ultimate bureaucrat, extortion artist, or social engineer's wet dream, all on a patrol cop's laptop.
The thing is, as you point out, the concept is not new. Re Godwin, I keep saying Hitler actually won that war, and some people even understand this, but this scope and level of detail was in fact pioneered by the Catholic Church, and beloved of clergy down through the ages, which (excuse me while I indulge in sarcasm) explains the advanced state of modern civilization.
In the law enforcement/intel arena, this level of interjurisdictional cooperation is not new either, at least for select lucky individuals. That's troubling enough, but the real problem here is putting tools like this in the hands of any greedy underpaid beat cop with notions of grandeur, or other nosy, busybody public employee or corrupt bureaucrat with influence to push or insider info to sell. You might in that case go ahead and give mobsters, bounty hunters, collection agencies, private dicks, etc. the same info, because they're going to get it under the table anyway. Under those circumstances I can only say "Hack the planet!" and release to all, open-sourced. Let the chips fall where they may. I've got nothing to hide. Have you, Mr. Police Chief, or Ms. DOJ TLA field agent? Or, hell yes, you, Mr. Pres., or you Sen. Snort? Something to think about, eh?
Yeah, and thenwe got the Myarc Geneve, too, which used the V9938 MSX2 video chip. Ironic you can run Tomy Tutor games on the Geneve, since it has the same CPU, using the 9918A modes of the V9938. Now if I can find the time for a Z80 emulator for the 9995...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
:-) No, this should be open-source, open standards, and distributed, not centalized. Only thing the State could do to help would be to waive copyright and database aggregation rights. Grant fair use license. Hell, abolish copyright and patents, but I digress. I wager "homeland security" would be much more assured, though.
eg. "Our goal, and our mission, is to help Lebanese citizens and Lebanese businesses not only recover, but to flourish, because we believe strongly in the concept of a democracy in Lebanon."
I really dread reading the newspaper anymore. One morning I'm going find that someone has come out four-square for the concept of a democracy in the U.S.A.
This is incredibly useful and worthwhile research, but I fear it would be totally lost on DHS if it were left in their hands. Just the second-order effects of self-reference, not just exposing the Prez' badly parsed horse-puckey, they couldn't handle. Too much paperwork
jbdigriz
Hey, whaddya mean, "yet?"
Ask Jim Bell.
Ask Jim Goad.
Ask Sherman Austin.
Etc.
Tim May used to say all the time, back before the cypherpunks list pretty much dissolved, that if your sekrit comm network can't withstand subpeonas and jackboots on a kiddie porn (or tax evasion, or terrorist conspiracy, or money-laundering, or dope-dealing, etc.) warrant, then it is hardly secure for anything else, or anonymous. People want to eat their cake and have it too, but like another man said, TANSTAAFL. At least the Tor project hasn't fallen for the trap waiting for Freenet, currently enmired in the "darknet" fallacy.
You either believe in the 1st Amendment or you don't. There is no middle road here. That is a fantasy and rationalization the courts came up with.
James B. "My sister is a Fed" DiGriz
The local ILEC's business office here used to prominently display warnings about 900 numbers, and the kind ladies there will still sometimes thoughtfully install toll-blocking without your even asking. :-) Still, those comfy new air-conditioned offices were paid for in no small measure by phone and webcam, er, "sex".
This is basic suitology, though, folks. Suits do not, contrary to popular belief, actually give a rat's ass about money, as long as their job is not affected. They are whipped dogs to begin with. What they care about is SECURITY. Sony or somebody made noises, probably about something else entirely, edicts got issued from on high, and the pissants in the trenches apply them without discernment. No way are they going to stick their head on the chopping block, even a non-existent one, and take the fall for a judgement call that MIGHT, even if only hypothetically, get PayPal, er E-bay, sued.
The best thing is to switch to e-gold or some other actual online exchange system akin to real money. Unless you know someone higher up at Ebay with some cojones, which unfortunately is not likely-I mean, Ebay is still pretty cool and all, but you could see the handwriting on the wall years ago when they jumped through the hoops for Giuliani et al. and banned firearms sales. The bureaucracy is firmly entrenched there. The SEC and FedGov require it.
Unless I'm hearing her wrong, Rutkowska is only claiming that to the extent the underlying virtualiztion is complete, the existence of the hypervisor is undetectable, in principle, to code running under it. Only if you break out of that closed system, maybe by way of Chaumian double-blinding to an external third-party or agent by some other means opaque to the hypervisor (an issue I'm looking into right now) or, as has been mentioned, external (to restate myself) timing references, which are suspect under a complete virtualization *unless* there is some opacity wrt the hypervisor's view, can you (meaining in this context, the virtualized code. Again this has been pointed out explicitly by Rutkowska.) guarantee that you aren't being diddled.
In practice, there are always implementation isssues, and Liquroi is not to be faulted for pointing them out, but I don't see that he has sucessfully countered her main thesis.
I should hasten to add that the issue Rutkowska raises should not be considered any kind of argument against virtualization. Virtualization implementors may want to consider security cutouts at some point, though. In the end, astute users are going to be the court of last resort. Scary thought, that. (I fix PeeCees to put bread on the table right now, and the tales I could tell about lusers...well, I'm sure I'm not alone there.)
Assertation is an unfamiliar concept I have to look into. Sounds just a little bit implausible to me, but then so does Kant.