Apparently you don't even need Real Photoshop to turn a McLovin' Hawai'i Driver's License into an adequate-quality fake ID for Google+ purposes.
The idea that faxing/emailing a copy of an ID somehow validates that you are the legitimate owner of that ID was bogus from the get go.
At best the guy looking at the copy can plug in the name and address (if it is on the ID) into a marketing database to see if it matches what's already in that database. But he can't tell that you aren't a faker who looked up the target's identity in the phone book or even the same database and then put that info on a forged ID and emailed it them.
Even if they wanted to look at your face via video chat, all you have to do is make a fake ID with the real name and address but use your face for the picture.
This stuff provides no security for users, it only makes their lives more difficult while making it even easier for con-men to pull off scams because now the marks will think that since Google/facebook/etc are requiring real IDs that the con-man really is who he says he is.
There is nothing politically orientated about the UK riots, its literally just idiots doing whatever they think they can get away with.
"You're right, they are just rioting for the fuck of it. The question is, how did these people get into a position where this was considered OK? Because of the lack of education, jobs and social stability for many of these kids. It's not what they think they're rioting for - which I'd say is for the thrill of it, because they are bored, because they want to get in a ruckus and they want to loot for free stuff - it's what got them to this point. And what got them here was the lack of investment (both in money and education) in the lower/working classes in the UK."
"Just because you do not recognise your actions as political, it doesn't mean they're not political."
There's one fundamental difference. A gun isn't sentient.
Indeed. I see all this blaming of people for inciting a riot as ultimately absolving the rioters from their actions. What I find ironic is that it appears the sort of person who is willing to put blame on people for inciting a riot is not so willing to put blame on the politicians who were in part responsible for creating such a volatile environment to begin with.
How, in your mind, do these things become mutually exclusive? Interesting concept.
They became mutually exclusive when you pinned your argument on one of them.
You've been reduced to saying exactly one thing - "The Government is broke" and from that basis you argue for the elimination of an entire class of government programs. You've not shown why that class is any more deserving of cuts than any other class of government programs. You haven't even tried, in fact you've tried to back away from any implication that there is anything specifically wrong with those programs in the first place - "I wasn't arguing about the concept."
So basically you've utterly failed to support your point.
There are many places in the world right now that have no government welfare programs, but where the poor are far better off than they were 100 years ago. (Largely due to charity organizations.)
Don't try to redefine the criteria. It isn't about simply being better off than they were 100 years ago, it is about being better off relative to the rest of society. Charities don't have diddly-squat to do with the improvements over the last century, its been the advance of technology.
And it seems to me that you haven't done your homework. The government budget is up 50% over what it was just 10 years ago! Taxes may be a little lower, but they aren't down by a full third (which is what it would take, in proportion.)
We are at a short-term spending peak, a peak lower than where we were at at the end of WWII and this peak has basically nothing to do with social programs - its because we blew it all on the wars and on wallstreet bailouts.
Just how do you go from over-spending on wars and welfare for the top 1% of the population to cutting programs for the poorest?
Why not keep arrest lists private until convection.
Because the abuse it leads to is inevitable. Secret arrests mean no public oversight. It's the kind of thing overbearing governments do - disappearing them in the middle of the night. We don't permit secret arrests because the damage to the fabric of society is far greater than the damage to an individual's reputation.
Same thing with these secret persecution lists - it may be individually more convenient as long as getting put on the list doesn't coincide with any other injustices The problem is that every time we accept the removal of one safeguard in our justice system it just makes the erosion of the next one that much easier in the future.
The funny thing is, "my way" succeeded for hundreds of years. Sometimes better, sometimes worse.
Really? I challenge you to name 5 cases or even just 1 case anywhere in the history of man where there were no government welfare programs and yet those at the bottom of the social ladder had anywhere near as high living standards relative to the living standards of the people at the top as they do today in the USA.
Like I said the first time, there are no such countries in the modern world. I'm pretty sure there never have been either. But you seem pretty damn sure of yourself so I would like to know why.
The Federal government way looked good for a long time, but the house of cards is beginning to come down.
Seems to me that has a lot more to do with the fact that the current tax burden is the least it has been in modern times. It isn't a case of going broke because of over-spending, its a case of going broke because of purposely reduced funding.
SS doesn't have any money at all. It has nothing but government IOUs where the money was supposed to be.
So wait a second. First SS "failed" becuase it went broke. But now you are saying that no, SS didn't go broke, its money was "stolen" by other parts of the government. I don't see that as indictment of SS in any way shape or form.
FWIW all of those things are part of a good modern stack and technically not more functionality. I too struggled to figure out what might qualify as "more functionality," the only things I could think of would be support for new protocols or "replacement" implementations - like an app could pass a function pointer to the stack and say "for my connections, use this code to do the tcp processing instead of what came with the kernel" or possibly define an entirely new protocol that could be application defined but still run in the kernel context for efficiency.
Of course the alternative is that "more functionality" isn't the right words to describe MS's intent and what they really said or meant was closer to "easier for MS's engineers to modify in the future."
I am (or was, its been 15 years) actually pretty familiar with Spider's code and it wasn't even close to to the BSD stack.
They probably lifted constants and structures inherent to TCP/IP and might have cut-n-pasted a few code snippets like checksum calculations, maybe even some higher-level stuff to emulate sockets on top of the STREAMS Transport Layer Interface. But the heart and soul of the BSD stack is the mbuf structure and that didn't exist at all anywhere in the Spider code. Not just a simple search-and-replace with a different data structure, it was an entirely different data flow because STREAMS had requirements that couldn't just be "bolted on" to the BSD stack.
Totally sucked for me because everything I knew about BSD network internals was useless there - and everything I learned about Spider's code while on that job became practically useless the second I moved on as Sun's own STREAMS implementation in Solaris, which was basically the only mainstream use of STREAMS, had nothing to do with Spider.
It has been considered common knowledge that their pre-Vista TCP/IP stack was taken from BSD, as was their FTP executable. If you're going to claim otherwise, you should offer some citations please.
Like lots of common knowledge, it was https://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357">wrong and you'll see that the wikipedia page you linked to does not cite its sources for those claims. While it may be true that Vista has a complete network stack rewrite, that does not mean there wasn't an earlier rewrite when Spider was dumped.
Technically, you needn't send the whole thing. You couldn't send the whole thing, anyways, as there are limits on the size of an IP packet. You sent the packet in IP fragments. You needn't even send all of the fragments. Merely sending the last fragment, the one that overflowed the IP packet size.
Yeah, it was really just convenience to use ping since anyone could run it and most OSes would happily do the illegal fragmentation for you.
These 'what if' scenarios are so statistically insignificant, particularly if you follow the sensible part I mentioned, that it's basically a barrier to being able to use technically in a useful and fun manner.
Ah, the old convenience trumps everything argument.
The problem with even such "statistically insignificant" events is their outsized effect. I don't mean just screwing over one person, I mean screwing over society. Because you can never really take it back something once it is on the net, what you think today is no big deal may change as circumstance change but you can't change the fact that the information is now out there.
One such example is the netflix "anonymized" data that they released a few years back. Yeah it was anonymous, until combined with IMDB voting information. Once that happened it was easy to out closeted gays who rented both 'straight' and gay-interest movies from netflix. Careful to keep their cover they only ever voted on 'straight' movies at IMDB, but that was still enough to match the 'anonymous' netflix profiles that contained the record of all of their movie rentals.
Big deal. So some gays might have been outed, it happens all the time. It's not the end of the world for everybody else. Consider a whistle-blower with an extensive facebook profile. In order to protect his identity, he decides to send some documents to his uncle halfway across the country to have them snail-mailed with a post-mark from an entirely different state. Except that facebook information links him to his uncle and the people he blew the whistle on are able to use that information to narrow down their list of suspects to just him. Oh shit.
Oh shit for him and oh shit for all whistle-blowers in the future who may be intimidated into silence because there is just so much info out there about them that they can't have any confidence that it won't somehow, someway be used for revenge.
More hyperbole? Eh, it would make a good movie. But it also makes a relate-able example of the entirely new class of risks for people who "act sensibly" but could still get boned and most importantly, society in general gets boned because the corrupting nature of the status quo ends up being challenged less and less.
You're forgetting about the part where Microsoft wrote a *BRAND NEW* TCP stack for Vista+. This is why these old bugs keep popping up in the news. Yes, it was patched -- but that was when they were using the forked BSD stack.
You got marked troll, and it's deserved. But better that someone else explain - MS never used a BSD stack. They licensed the Spider Systems STREAMS stack which was a wholly separate implementation (for one, it was STREAMS which BSD, AFAIK has never implemented).
However, my understanding is that MS did eventually roll their own stack, iirc it was for XP.
It really didn't do much unless your bombing your buddies dialup server, and thus tying up your dialup line. I guess it could be slightly annoying if you could get a shit ton of people to do it today.
I don't know what you are talking about, but it certainly isn't the ping of death. Maybe ping flooding? I personally wrote the patch for a now long defunct unix variant which fixed the actual "Ping of Death" vulnerability.
The way it worked was to send a ping with a 65536 byte payload - technically out of spec for the ICMP protocol by about 30 bytes in length. Since it was out of spec, most IP stacks were written with the assumption that it could never happen. But when it did happen, you got a buffer overflow that would usually panic the OS immediately. At the time, almost every OS on the net was vulnerable even the guys who didn't have BSD-derived stacks like MS Windows.
So all it took was one single oversized-sized icmp ping to crash just about any computer on the net. Imagine being able to take down all of google's internet presence with just a few thousand packets. Of course, at the time, there was no google.
Wow. Your argument in favour of secret government lists is that it is more convenient to keep them secret. Screw effectiveness. Forget about actual justice. It's just nicer to keep all that ugly stuff out of public view.
I suppose you'd be in favour of keeping all arrests private until conviction, just to be sure that no one gets fired because someone with their name got arrested, right?
If the goal is to deter terrorists then they ought to publish the lists far and wide - if a some bad guy knows he's on the list then (a) he won't bother trying anything and (b) no other terrorists will go anywhere near the guy, thus reducing their ability to organise.
Unless there is an actual active investigation in process that would be jeopardised, keeping the list a secret is just silly - it's a list of people so dangerous they can't be allowed on an airplane or do other things normal people do but too harmless to arrest.
The "naive" way I mean it? So now you're reading minds? You'll have to teach me how to do that.
I wouldn't have to read minds if you bothered to explain yourself the first time. When people say a government program is "failing" they don't usually mean it is going broke because they aren't funded like a business. Normally a failing program is one that is failing to meet its objectives. Governments go broke, not government programs.
Social Security, Welfare, and long-established Federal "medical care" programs ARE FAILING. Not in some "naive" or overly-simplistic way: they are going broke.
Yeah, not really true. Perhaps you mean they are over-budget? Although as far as I can tell SS isn't even over budget since it isn't expected to run a deficit until 2025 and that's assuming there are absolutely no changes to keep up with the times.
Meanwhile, nice deflection, that getting all angry and hyperbolic about "reading minds," good way to ignore my central point that what you propose has practically no history at all of succeeding, unless of course, your definition of success is simply letting the poor rot as long as the government always runs a surplus.
The hyperbole is silly. And it's suggestive of a gross lack of maturity and perspective on your part.
Now I am having a laugh. It's like you wouldn't even recognise your own reflection if you saw it in a mirror.
Indeed, the police have shown enormous restraint, because here they have a model of 'policing by consent', and the police don't normally carry guns.
Clearly they don't police by consent in the areas that have riots, else - by your very own logic - those cops wouldn't have had the guns they used to shoot the guy.
Obviously the UK is not China, but that doesn't make China's "go to excuse" any more legitimate when someone in the UK uses it.
From reading the article (which I head to search for through Google because it was subscriber locked),
Block cookies and set your referrer to google.com (use firefox plugin refcontrol) and you won't need to do that. Works for nearly every semi-paywalled newspaper.
Living in London, and seeing the chaos first hand, I find the millions of ignorant teenage American basement dwellers posting here, with their stupid, teenage libertarian logic highly offensive. Britain is a different country, with different traditions, and different laws to the US.
Are you sure you live in Britain? Because that refrain is something we usually here coming from the autocrats in China.
What if this had been a real explosive device? They could easily have set this thing off in the terminal with all their prodding and poking, causing numerous casualties.
Since they have never, in the entire history of the TSA, encountered a real explosive device, its pretty low risk for them to screw around with whatever they do find.
This six month old story on Ars mentioned more details on the program and 2 of the other major concessions they had to make to get the merger approved. Hiring Meredith Attwell Baker away from the FCC was probably a big help also.
That's it. No grand plan by the government to roust other cells through the threat of code-breaking. Just a bunch of people who downloaded a copy of the manifesto just like anyone else in the world could do if they so wanted.
I'm all for a good conspiracy theory but, damn, at least do some basic research before starting in on the wild ass stories.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you don't even need Real Photoshop to turn a McLovin' Hawai'i Driver's License into an adequate-quality fake ID for Google+ purposes.
The idea that faxing/emailing a copy of an ID somehow validates that you are the legitimate owner of that ID was bogus from the get go.
At best the guy looking at the copy can plug in the name and address (if it is on the ID) into a marketing database to see if it matches what's already in that database. But he can't tell that you aren't a faker who looked up the target's identity in the phone book or even the same database and then put that info on a forged ID and emailed it them.
Even if they wanted to look at your face via video chat, all you have to do is make a fake ID with the real name and address but use your face for the picture.
This stuff provides no security for users, it only makes their lives more difficult while making it even easier for con-men to pull off scams because now the marks will think that since Google/facebook/etc are requiring real IDs that the con-man really is who he says he is.
Utter fail all around.
There is nothing politically orientated about the UK riots, its literally just idiots doing whatever they think they can get away with.
"You're right, they are just rioting for the fuck of it. The question is, how did these people get into a position where this was considered OK? Because of the lack of education, jobs and social stability for many of these kids. It's not what they think they're rioting for - which I'd say is for the thrill of it, because they are bored, because they want to get in a ruckus and they want to loot for free stuff - it's what got them to this point. And what got them here was the lack of investment (both in money and education) in the lower/working classes in the UK."
"Just because you do not recognise your actions as political, it doesn't mean they're not political."
(Thanks to the original unknown author.)
There's one fundamental difference. A gun isn't sentient.
Indeed. I see all this blaming of people for inciting a riot as ultimately absolving the rioters from their actions. What I find ironic is that it appears the sort of person who is willing to put blame on people for inciting a riot is not so willing to put blame on the politicians who were in part responsible for creating such a volatile environment to begin with.
How, in your mind, do these things become mutually exclusive? Interesting concept.
They became mutually exclusive when you pinned your argument on one of them.
You've been reduced to saying exactly one thing - "The Government is broke" and from that basis you argue for the elimination of an entire class of government programs. You've not shown why that class is any more deserving of cuts than any other class of government programs. You haven't even tried, in fact you've tried to back away from any implication that there is anything specifically wrong with those programs in the first place - "I wasn't arguing about the concept."
So basically you've utterly failed to support your point.
There are many places in the world right now that have no government welfare programs, but where the poor are far better off than they were 100 years ago. (Largely due to charity organizations.)
Don't try to redefine the criteria. It isn't about simply being better off than they were 100 years ago, it is about being better off relative to the rest of society. Charities don't have diddly-squat to do with the improvements over the last century, its been the advance of technology.
And it seems to me that you haven't done your homework. The government budget is up 50% over what it was just 10 years ago! Taxes may be a little lower, but they aren't down by a full third (which is what it would take, in proportion.)
We are at a short-term spending peak, a peak lower than where we were at at the end of WWII and this peak has basically nothing to do with social programs - its because we blew it all on the wars and on wallstreet bailouts.
Just how do you go from over-spending on wars and welfare for the top 1% of the population to cutting programs for the poorest?
Why not keep arrest lists private until convection.
Because the abuse it leads to is inevitable. Secret arrests mean no public oversight. It's the kind of thing overbearing governments do - disappearing them in the middle of the night. We don't permit secret arrests because the damage to the fabric of society is far greater than the damage to an individual's reputation.
Same thing with these secret persecution lists - it may be individually more convenient as long as getting put on the list doesn't coincide with any other injustices The problem is that every time we accept the removal of one safeguard in our justice system it just makes the erosion of the next one that much easier in the future.
The funny thing is, "my way" succeeded for hundreds of years. Sometimes better, sometimes worse.
Really? I challenge you to name 5 cases or even just 1 case anywhere in the history of man where there were no government welfare programs and yet those at the bottom of the social ladder had anywhere near as high living standards relative to the living standards of the people at the top as they do today in the USA.
Like I said the first time, there are no such countries in the modern world. I'm pretty sure there never have been either. But you seem pretty damn sure of yourself so I would like to know why.
The Federal government way looked good for a long time, but the house of cards is beginning to come down.
Seems to me that has a lot more to do with the fact that the current tax burden is the least it has been in modern times. It isn't a case of going broke because of over-spending, its a case of going broke because of purposely reduced funding.
SS doesn't have any money at all. It has nothing but government IOUs where the money was supposed to be.
So wait a second. First SS "failed" becuase it went broke. But now you are saying that no, SS didn't go broke, its money was "stolen" by other parts of the government. I don't see that as indictment of SS in any way shape or form.
FWIW all of those things are part of a good modern stack and technically not more functionality. I too struggled to figure out what might qualify as "more functionality," the only things I could think of would be support for new protocols or "replacement" implementations - like an app could pass a function pointer to the stack and say "for my connections, use this code to do the tcp processing instead of what came with the kernel" or possibly define an entirely new protocol that could be application defined but still run in the kernel context for efficiency.
Of course the alternative is that "more functionality" isn't the right words to describe MS's intent and what they really said or meant was closer to "easier for MS's engineers to modify in the future."
I am (or was, its been 15 years) actually pretty familiar with Spider's code and it wasn't even close to to the BSD stack.
They probably lifted constants and structures inherent to TCP/IP and might have cut-n-pasted a few code snippets like checksum calculations, maybe even some higher-level stuff to emulate sockets on top of the STREAMS Transport Layer Interface. But the heart and soul of the BSD stack is the mbuf structure and that didn't exist at all anywhere in the Spider code. Not just a simple search-and-replace with a different data structure, it was an entirely different data flow because STREAMS had requirements that couldn't just be "bolted on" to the BSD stack.
Totally sucked for me because everything I knew about BSD network internals was useless there - and everything I learned about Spider's code while on that job became practically useless the second I moved on as Sun's own STREAMS implementation in Solaris, which was basically the only mainstream use of STREAMS, had nothing to do with Spider.
Stupid typo!
https://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357
It has been considered common knowledge that their pre-Vista TCP/IP stack was taken from BSD, as was their FTP executable. If you're going to claim otherwise, you should offer some citations please.
Like lots of common knowledge, it was https://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357">wrong and you'll see that the wikipedia page you linked to does not cite its sources for those claims. While it may be true that Vista has a complete network stack rewrite, that does not mean there wasn't an earlier rewrite when Spider was dumped.
Technically, you needn't send the whole thing. You couldn't send the whole thing, anyways, as there are limits on the size of an IP packet. You sent the packet in IP fragments. You needn't even send all of the fragments. Merely sending the last fragment, the one that overflowed the IP packet size.
Yeah, it was really just convenience to use ping since anyone could run it and most OSes would happily do the illegal fragmentation for you.
These 'what if' scenarios are so statistically insignificant, particularly if you follow the sensible part I mentioned, that it's basically a barrier to being able to use technically in a useful and fun manner.
Ah, the old convenience trumps everything argument.
The problem with even such "statistically insignificant" events is their outsized effect. I don't mean just screwing over one person, I mean screwing over society. Because you can never really take it back something once it is on the net, what you think today is no big deal may change as circumstance change but you can't change the fact that the information is now out there.
One such example is the netflix "anonymized" data that they released a few years back. Yeah it was anonymous, until combined with IMDB voting information. Once that happened it was easy to out closeted gays who rented both 'straight' and gay-interest movies from netflix. Careful to keep their cover they only ever voted on 'straight' movies at IMDB, but that was still enough to match the 'anonymous' netflix profiles that contained the record of all of their movie rentals.
Big deal. So some gays might have been outed, it happens all the time. It's not the end of the world for everybody else. Consider a whistle-blower with an extensive facebook profile. In order to protect his identity, he decides to send some documents to his uncle halfway across the country to have them snail-mailed with a post-mark from an entirely different state. Except that facebook information links him to his uncle and the people he blew the whistle on are able to use that information to narrow down their list of suspects to just him. Oh shit.
Oh shit for him and oh shit for all whistle-blowers in the future who may be intimidated into silence because there is just so much info out there about them that they can't have any confidence that it won't somehow, someway be used for revenge.
More hyperbole? Eh, it would make a good movie. But it also makes a relate-able example of the entirely new class of risks for people who "act sensibly" but could still get boned and most importantly, society in general gets boned because the corrupting nature of the status quo ends up being challenged less and less.
You're forgetting about the part where Microsoft wrote a *BRAND NEW* TCP stack for Vista+. This is why these old bugs keep popping up in the news. Yes, it was patched -- but that was when they were using the forked BSD stack.
You got marked troll, and it's deserved. But better that someone else explain - MS never used a BSD stack. They licensed the Spider Systems STREAMS stack which was a wholly separate implementation (for one, it was STREAMS which BSD, AFAIK has never implemented).
However, my understanding is that MS did eventually roll their own stack, iirc it was for XP.
It really didn't do much unless your bombing your buddies dialup server, and thus tying up your dialup line. I guess it could be slightly annoying if you could get a shit ton of people to do it today.
I don't know what you are talking about, but it certainly isn't the ping of death. Maybe ping flooding? I personally wrote the patch for a now long defunct unix variant which fixed the actual "Ping of Death" vulnerability.
The way it worked was to send a ping with a 65536 byte payload - technically out of spec for the ICMP protocol by about 30 bytes in length. Since it was out of spec, most IP stacks were written with the assumption that it could never happen. But when it did happen, you got a buffer overflow that would usually panic the OS immediately. At the time, almost every OS on the net was vulnerable even the guys who didn't have BSD-derived stacks like MS Windows.
So all it took was one single oversized-sized icmp ping to crash just about any computer on the net. Imagine being able to take down all of google's internet presence with just a few thousand packets. Of course, at the time, there was no google.
Wow. Your argument in favour of secret government lists is that it is more convenient to keep them secret. Screw effectiveness. Forget about actual justice. It's just nicer to keep all that ugly stuff out of public view.
I suppose you'd be in favour of keeping all arrests private until conviction, just to be sure that no one gets fired because someone with their name got arrested, right?
If the goal is to deter terrorists then they ought to publish the lists far and wide - if a some bad guy knows he's on the list then (a) he won't bother trying anything and (b) no other terrorists will go anywhere near the guy, thus reducing their ability to organise.
Unless there is an actual active investigation in process that would be jeopardised, keeping the list a secret is just silly - it's a list of people so dangerous they can't be allowed on an airplane or do other things normal people do but too harmless to arrest.
The "naive" way I mean it? So now you're reading minds? You'll have to teach me how to do that.
I wouldn't have to read minds if you bothered to explain yourself the first time. When people say a government program is "failing" they don't usually mean it is going broke because they aren't funded like a business. Normally a failing program is one that is failing to meet its objectives. Governments go broke, not government programs.
Social Security, Welfare, and long-established Federal "medical care" programs ARE FAILING. Not in some "naive" or overly-simplistic way: they are going broke.
Yeah, not really true. Perhaps you mean they are over-budget? Although as far as I can tell SS isn't even over budget since it isn't expected to run a deficit until 2025 and that's assuming there are absolutely no changes to keep up with the times.
Meanwhile, nice deflection, that getting all angry and hyperbolic about "reading minds," good way to ignore my central point that what you propose has practically no history at all of succeeding, unless of course, your definition of success is simply letting the poor rot as long as the government always runs a surplus.
The hyperbole is silly. And it's suggestive of a gross lack of maturity and perspective on your part.
Now I am having a laugh. It's like you wouldn't even recognise your own reflection if you saw it in a mirror.
Indeed, the police have shown enormous restraint, because here they have a model of 'policing by consent', and the police don't normally carry guns.
Clearly they don't police by consent in the areas that have riots, else - by your very own logic - those cops wouldn't have had the guns they used to shoot the guy.
Obviously the UK is not China, but that doesn't make China's "go to excuse" any more legitimate when someone in the UK uses it.
From reading the article (which I head to search for through Google because it was subscriber locked),
Block cookies and set your referrer to google.com (use firefox plugin refcontrol) and you won't need to do that. Works for nearly every semi-paywalled newspaper.
Living in London, and seeing the chaos first hand, I find the millions of ignorant teenage American basement dwellers posting here, with their stupid, teenage libertarian logic highly offensive. Britain is a different country, with different traditions, and different laws to the US.
Are you sure you live in Britain? Because that refrain is something we usually here coming from the autocrats in China.
What if this had been a real explosive device? They could easily have set this thing off in the terminal with all their prodding and poking, causing numerous casualties.
Since they have never, in the entire history of the TSA, encountered a real explosive device, its pretty low risk for them to screw around with whatever they do find.
This six month old story on Ars mentioned more details on the program and 2 of the other major concessions they had to make to get the merger approved. Hiring Meredith Attwell Baker away from the FCC was probably a big help also.
Hiring her was the 4th concession.
Crowdsourcing could be the way of the future of the government would just get off your backs.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Seems to me that the two are only marginally related.
Most likely its being made public just in case this is some sort of instruction system for various cells.
Bullshit. Utterly uninformed, speculative, fear-mongering bullshit.
It's being "made public" because Breivik emailed his manifesto, including all of the codes, to over 1,000 people on the day of his attacks.
That's it. No grand plan by the government to roust other cells through the threat of code-breaking. Just a bunch of people who downloaded a copy of the manifesto just like anyone else in the world could do if they so wanted.
I'm all for a good conspiracy theory but, damn, at least do some basic research before starting in on the wild ass stories.