Ok, so that's new. I was referring to the Jan 2006 certification which took 5 years. Looks like they certified a couple of versions in 2008 and then it took 4 more years for the 2012 cert. You'll note it is also a very specific part of OpenSSL, not the entire suite.
That is correct. But it's, what, 8 years old now? FIPS certification is a PITA because any changes to the product require re-certification and it is a really long process.
I want to see at least some of these thugs in the upper tiers behind bars!
I'd be happy to see them eat their own dog food. Put a GPS ankle-bracelet on them and make them live on the polluted land and drink the polluted water.
They're good for other reasons, such as stopping all the other attackers that aren't the U.S. government.
You are completely correct here. The NSA is answerable to we the people, those other attackers are not. Politics is what will fix the NSA, tech is what will fix the other guys. Google needs to seriously step up their political lobbying to in order to reign in the NSA. Encrypting all of their backhaul traffic won't make a difference if the NSA has compromised the end points to hand out the encryption keys whenever the NSA pings those boxes.
Your'e ridiculous. I'm done. You can have the last word.
Ok, I will take it.
The problem here is that you are willing to parse what Google says in their favor and then assume that anybody who doesn't read it that way is ridiculous. But in this environment, where they have every reason to lie and no reason to be honest, that doesn't cut it.
Furthermore you weaken your position by trying to piecemeal their statements to be conditional when your very first response was that their statements were unconditional.
Even if they are honest, they don't get the benefit of the doubt under these circumstances. They have not done enough to push back on government overreach, even now this court case isn't about pushing back on spying, it's about shoring up Google's reputation. Google was able to make a really strong public statement about SOPA, but with the NSA all they seem to be doing is trying to keep it arm's length so it won't rub off on them. That's says it's all about PR and nobody trusts corporate PR.
If Google wants to be taken at their word on this topic, then they need more than just words. They need action - put their money into fixing things, both politically and technically. That's the only way they can earn trust.
But Drummond said "no free for all", which is what that would be.
Only by one specific definition. Obviously the government does not think it is a free for all or they would not have been pushing for additional access ala CALEA II.
A prevailing attitude in Europe is with a decline of civilization, government, and social order, people will turn to animalistic barbarism within days.
No, it isn't cultural, other than a form of "elite panic" where the rich and powerful believe that society is only held together by the institutions that they themselves are in charge of. It is really self-fullfilling prophecy that tends to wreck the natural instinct of most humans to help each other in times of crisis.
So, the entire point of your post was "some people are really stupid?" What value is there in that?
> I'll bet this topic frustrates
I haven't read up on golden rice, so I can't really say. My issue is with someone citing what sure looked like parody to me as proof of anything meaningful about the topic. That doesn't add understanding, it's just knocking down a strawman to make yourself feel superior.
He also acknowledged that Google complies with lawful requests... but with the caveat that each request is scrutinized.
(a) There has never been a question of "lawfulness" (b) His broad-but-not-broad denial doesn't address how specific each request must be. We already know the FISA court was OK with a single request covering basically every customer at each telco
I guess if you're bound and determined to find duplicity, you'll keep looking until you do.
In general, I have a low opinion of those who irrationally hate oppose golden rice, for reasons mentioned above.
Ah, so no it wasn't extrapolation, it was confirmation bias.
After all, an AC saying something like, "And guess what, no Monsanto can sue you for growing unmodified carrots!" means he's an example of mainstream criticism of GMOs.
Wow, you have extrapolated from a trolling AC to stereotyping people who are doubtful about GMOs. For all you know rossz posted that just to make his own over-the-top post post look more plausible.
The PRISM claims were about sweeping, general access that grabbed basically all data.
Actually the PRISM claims were all of one line from an NSA slide that specifically said "direct access." Some people extrapolated that into all kinds of other things, but the actual reporting was very specific and the Guardian was careful to always reference that NSA's statement in their reporting.
Drummond specifically addressed that aspect in the sentence immediately prior to the one you quoted.
That's funny, you are now arguing that Drummond was parsing his words. That his broad and sweeping denials were actually limited.
There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box.
If that strikes you as "ultra-parsed", I submit that you're the one doing the parsing, not Drummond.
You are right, that particular statement does not sound ultra-parsed. Given what we know about CALEA it sounds like a lie, particularly the "no indirect access" part.
When Google, Yahoo, and Facebook join together to assert that the state of surveillance on the internet is out of hand, you know you are totally fucked.
Actually, they seem to be claiming just the opposite. That they have been unfairly maligned by the Snowden leaks and they want to clear their names.
I'm not quite sure what they can say that would make me believe them. So far their public statements have felt like they were as ultra-parsed as the NSA's own denials.
If plates become electronic and networked, then the question needs to be asked, why do we even need a license plate to display a number at all.
Actually you have that question exactly backwards. The question is, why have electronic networked plates in the first place? License plates were created to increase accountability - if you ran over a pedestrian and didn't stop, chances are someone would see your plate.
That was a reasonable compromise, the plate wasn't really needed until after the driver behaved badly on the road. But making plates networked and such flips around - now we are all being observed in case some driver does something bad. We've moved the observation to cover everybody before the fact, rather than just the guilty parties after the fact.
What we really need are machine unreadable plates - plates that can only be read by humans, not computer systems. Chances are that will never happy, the police would fight it to the last man.
Caps do not fix the problems of over-subscription. The majority of customers will all have the same usage patterns - basically heavy usage during prime-time and a trickle the rest of the day. Restricting the total gigabytes downloaded by the month can only minimally improve congestion during prime-time... it does nothing until a couple of weeks into the month when people start to hit their limits and can't download anything at all, otherwise they still go full speed during prime-time.
Furthermore, the modern ISP has huge, huge margins on bandwidth. Like 90+ % gross margins - the vast majority of an ISP's cost are in the infrastructure (cables, equipment, staff) not in bandwidth itself. Wholesale bandwidth pricing itself has been dropping like a stone, reducing by at least 30% a year for many years now and has recently accelerated to about 50% a year.
Download caps are just a wholly inappropriate tool for fixing problems with over-subscription. They are, however, fantastic for hurting competing businesses like NetFlix and Hulu.
I can't wait to hack one, that way I can change my plate on the fly. Metal plates are a hassle to fake, but an electronic plate that is designed to change at the push of a button is going to make counterfeiting super easy.
Hell, you could have your plate change to a new (fake) number every time the odometer clicks over another mile. That will pollute all those fancy ANPR databases. You could really screw with those ANPR systems by using your own ANPR via a dash-cam that scans on-coming cars and once they have passed, switches your plate to that other car's license number.
Either way you'll have a very small chance of getting caught since it will change so fast and you don't even need to stop the car to do it. Besides, normally no one even looks at your plate unless something bad has already happened,
Slashdot Mirror
Remember the NSA has only gotten caught when they've been betrayed, not because their technical means were discovered.
Only for very specific definitions of "caught" - back in 2007 we were pretty sure they had fucked with Dual_EC_DRBG.
Ok, so that's new. I was referring to the Jan 2006 certification which took 5 years. Looks like they certified a couple of versions in 2008 and then it took 4 more years for the 2012 cert. You'll note it is also a very specific part of OpenSSL, not the entire suite.
That is correct. But it's, what, 8 years old now? FIPS certification is a PITA because any changes to the product require re-certification and it is a really long process.
I want to see at least some of these thugs in the upper tiers behind bars!
I'd be happy to see them eat their own dog food. Put a GPS ankle-bracelet on them and make them live on the polluted land and drink the polluted water.
If they can figure out how to reprogram fat cells to be muscle cells, we can eat McD's for an entire month end up looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
They're good for other reasons, such as stopping all the other attackers that aren't the U.S. government.
You are completely correct here. The NSA is answerable to we the people, those other attackers are not. Politics is what will fix the NSA, tech is what will fix the other guys. Google needs to seriously step up their political lobbying to in order to reign in the NSA. Encrypting all of their backhaul traffic won't make a difference if the NSA has compromised the end points to hand out the encryption keys whenever the NSA pings those boxes.
Your'e ridiculous. I'm done. You can have the last word.
Ok, I will take it.
The problem here is that you are willing to parse what Google says in their favor and then assume that anybody who doesn't read it that way is ridiculous. But in this environment, where they have every reason to lie and no reason to be honest, that doesn't cut it.
Furthermore you weaken your position by trying to piecemeal their statements to be conditional when your very first response was that their statements were unconditional.
Even if they are honest, they don't get the benefit of the doubt under these circumstances. They have not done enough to push back on government overreach, even now this court case isn't about pushing back on spying, it's about shoring up Google's reputation. Google was able to make a really strong public statement about SOPA, but with the NSA all they seem to be doing is trying to keep it arm's length so it won't rub off on them. That's says it's all about PR and nobody trusts corporate PR.
If Google wants to be taken at their word on this topic, then they need more than just words. They need action - put their money into fixing things, both politically and technically. That's the only way they can earn trust.
The best thing about it is that it also works as a microwave oven and a tanning booth!
But Drummond said "no free for all", which is what that would be.
Only by one specific definition. Obviously the government does not think it is a free for all or they would not have been pushing for additional access ala CALEA II.
When did Google fool you?
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/06/new-and-improved-facebook-and-google-statements-prism-still-have-some-holes/66024/
However, it's better than having an irrational fear of GMO.
Since you've just admitted to being deliberately irrational here, you don't have a leg to stand on.
I'm going to tell you something sad but true, the vast majority of most posts, including mine, have very little value.
Bookmarked for a response to anything you say in the future. If you aren't even going to try to add value to the discussion you are an asshole.
A prevailing attitude in Europe is with a decline of civilization, government, and social order, people will turn to animalistic barbarism within days.
No, it isn't cultural, other than a form of "elite panic" where the rich and powerful believe that society is only held together by the institutions that they themselves are in charge of. It is really self-fullfilling prophecy that tends to wreck the natural instinct of most humans to help each other in times of crisis.
Here's a taste of the problem:
http://boingboing.net/2013/04/14/elite-panic-why-rich-people-t.html
Some discussion of what did and did not happen in Haiti after the earthquake, by Slashdot's own Johnathan Katz:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/30/what-haiti-can-teach-us-about-the-storm.html
> I didn't say anything about mainstream critics
So, the entire point of your post was "some people are really stupid?" What value is there in that?
> I'll bet this topic frustrates
I haven't read up on golden rice, so I can't really say. My issue is with someone citing what sure looked like parody to me as proof of anything meaningful about the topic. That doesn't add understanding, it's just knocking down a strawman to make yourself feel superior.
For being almost impossible to completely uninstall.
McAfee's own un-installation video.
He also acknowledged that Google complies with lawful requests... but with the caveat that each request is scrutinized.
(a) There has never been a question of "lawfulness"
(b) His broad-but-not-broad denial doesn't address how specific each request must be. We already know the FISA court was OK with a single request covering basically every customer at each telco
I guess if you're bound and determined to find duplicity, you'll keep looking until you do.
Fool me once...
In general, I have a low opinion of those who irrationally hate oppose golden rice, for reasons mentioned above.
Ah, so no it wasn't extrapolation, it was confirmation bias.
After all, an AC saying something like, "And guess what, no Monsanto can sue you for growing unmodified carrots!" means he's an example of mainstream criticism of GMOs.
Wow, you have extrapolated from a trolling AC to stereotyping people who are doubtful about GMOs. For all you know rossz posted that just to make his own over-the-top post post look more plausible.
The PRISM claims were about sweeping, general access that grabbed basically all data.
Actually the PRISM claims were all of one line from an NSA slide that specifically said "direct access." Some people extrapolated that into all kinds of other things, but the actual reporting was very specific and the Guardian was careful to always reference that NSA's statement in their reporting.
Drummond specifically addressed that aspect in the sentence immediately prior to the one you quoted.
That's funny, you are now arguing that Drummond was parsing his words. That his broad and sweeping denials were actually limited.
There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box.
If that strikes you as "ultra-parsed", I submit that you're the one doing the parsing, not Drummond.
You are right, that particular statement does not sound ultra-parsed. Given what we know about CALEA it sounds like a lie, particularly the "no indirect access" part.
When Google, Yahoo, and Facebook join together to assert that the state of surveillance on the internet is out of hand, you know you are totally fucked.
Actually, they seem to be claiming just the opposite. That they have been unfairly maligned by the Snowden leaks and they want to clear their names.
I'm not quite sure what they can say that would make me believe them. So far their public statements have felt like they were as ultra-parsed as the NSA's own denials.
Oh come on, pedantry over colloquialisms adds no value to the discussion.
> If you think its cool to video the unboxing of your latest mobile phone
I do not. "Unboxing" is like watching someone else's kids open christmas presents. They are the tech-bloggers' equivalent of a selfie.
If plates become electronic and networked, then the question needs to be asked, why do we even need a license plate to display a number at all.
Actually you have that question exactly backwards. The question is, why have electronic networked plates in the first place? License plates were created to increase accountability - if you ran over a pedestrian and didn't stop, chances are someone would see your plate.
That was a reasonable compromise, the plate wasn't really needed until after the driver behaved badly on the road. But making plates networked and such flips around - now we are all being observed in case some driver does something bad. We've moved the observation to cover everybody before the fact, rather than just the guilty parties after the fact.
What we really need are machine unreadable plates - plates that can only be read by humans, not computer systems. Chances are that will never happy, the police would fight it to the last man.
So, what do ISPs do? They oversubscribe
Caps do not fix the problems of over-subscription. The majority of customers will all have the same usage patterns - basically heavy usage during prime-time and a trickle the rest of the day. Restricting the total gigabytes downloaded by the month can only minimally improve congestion during prime-time ... it does nothing until a couple of weeks into the month when people start to hit their limits and can't download anything at all, otherwise they still go full speed during prime-time.
Furthermore, the modern ISP has huge, huge margins on bandwidth. Like 90+ % gross margins - the vast majority of an ISP's cost are in the infrastructure (cables, equipment, staff) not in bandwidth itself. Wholesale bandwidth pricing itself has been dropping like a stone, reducing by at least 30% a year for many years now and has recently accelerated to about 50% a year.
http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/08/02/ip-transit-price-declines-steepen/
Download caps are just a wholly inappropriate tool for fixing problems with over-subscription. They are, however, fantastic for hurting competing businesses like NetFlix and Hulu.
I can't wait to hack one, that way I can change my plate on the fly. Metal plates are a hassle to fake, but an electronic plate that is designed to change at the push of a button is going to make counterfeiting super easy.
Hell, you could have your plate change to a new (fake) number every time the odometer clicks over another mile. That will pollute all those fancy ANPR databases. You could really screw with those ANPR systems by using your own ANPR via a dash-cam that scans on-coming cars and once they have passed, switches your plate to that other car's license number.
Either way you'll have a very small chance of getting caught since it will change so fast and you don't even need to stop the car to do it. Besides, normally no one even looks at your plate unless something bad has already happened,