I'm pretty sure the government doesn't care about your purchase history of... an inflatable love goat and a 55 gallon drum of lube. Nice. Your file still says "Mostly Harmless."
Except for the fact that directing the x-rays is pretty damn hard so every time you radiate the target, you radiate yourself. The amount of shielding required to prevent that makes portability significantly less practical.
Hopefully many of the mosques in America that encounter radical and/or terrorism sympathetic persons will rise to the occasion and do the same when they hear something actionable,
Finding people does not require accessing those people's information without authorization. A "secure" social network is one in which the user controls access - today on facebook the user controls access by other users but facebook itself can circumvent that because it is essentially a man in the middle attack.
No, it only requires forethought by the people who develop it. The developers need to come up with a system that is both reasonably functional and dead easy to use, with all the distributed security stuff is in the background and not the main selling point.
It is kinda like piracy and DRM - you only need one pirate to rip / crack something and it will end being spread by thousands of people who don't even think about how it was originally cracked.
Facebook and other social networks are useful because they host your pictures. That is not as useful as it once was because phones have much more storage space and much faster networking than they did 7 years ago.
I'd like to see a social network app that runs on phones (and PCs, and even big servers for people who need major horsepower because they have a lot of "friends" like celebrities). Maybe with the ability to backstop your media on a variety of sources like dropbox, or even a bittorrent swarm of all your "friends" so that when your phone is turned off, or out of cell bandwidth (versus wifi bandwidth) your friends can still get access to your shared media.
Facebook is "over centralized" in that anyone on facebook is equally close to you all the same server farms - but that ignores the entire point of having friends. All we need is a system where your phone knows about the ip addresses of the people on your friends list. It is OK if it takes a lot longer find the people who are not your friends list because accessing their data is going to be pretty rare.
Yes, and have the distance between you eyes adjusted, lower your nose, change the bridge of your nose, and sink your cheek bones, flatten your forehead, pin your ears back, and lower them as well, change your jaw line.
Much of those can be fuzzed by avoiding a dead-on camera angle. My understanding is that most DMV's require you to look directly into the camera (and not smile), but you may get a camera operator who doesn't give a damn. The last time I had to get a DMV photo taken I was able to turn my head to the left and down with a big smirk. The ladies running the camera laughed their asses off at my picture, I really look goofy - and let it pass.
Any facial recog software is going to have to work extra hard to calculate things like distance between eyes / nose / mouth / jaw from that picture. I'm sure really smart software could interpolate a 3D model of my face - but the incentive for that kind of software to be applied is minimal when the vast majority of DMV photos are dead-on and expressionless.
doesn't mean that there aren't other mechanisms in place to collect a lot more data without specific requests. For example, the NSA could be collecting data where Facebook's servers connect to the Internet.
Apparently SSL encryption at all of the large internet corps is handled by dedicated front-ends - and the network between the SSL front-ends and the real guts of entities like facebook, google, etc are all in the clear. That makes for a perfect location for the NSA to drop their sniffers in, no need to compromise any SSL certs at all, no forward secrecy, etc, just wide open traffic perfect for raw harvesting.
And, of course, you have to assume that the Utah data center is going to be used to store something, and it ain't gonna be data obtained from just 20000 Facebook-related requests, because those would fit on my hard drive.
I think that bears repeating - the NSA ain't building data silos (there are others, like one in san antonio, texas) that consume as much electricity as a small city for nothing. They are collecting literally tons of data on us, its gotta be coming from somewhere.
I simply cannot wrap my head around this. How is it in public's interest to be constantly surveiled in violation of the bill of rights?
That is what happens when the people in power become convinced of their own righteousness. It is not an evil plot, it is simply the natural result of fact that basically no one ever thinks of themselves as the bad guy. So if they are the good guys, then whatever they do must also be good. They convince themselves that any harmful side-effects truly are minimal (easy to do when the side-effects don't impact them directly) and are a necessary cost for the greater good.
Kim Dotcom's main business seems to be publicity for Kim Dotcom, with the evidence postponed to a future date.
Seems the guy has decided that he wants to fight this out in the court of public opinion. That's his right, especially given some of the public statements the US government has made about him one could even say that they started it.
The recent Pew poll indicating a majority of Americans are okay with warrantless data aggregation is merely a sign of the times to come.
No, the recent Pew poll was nothing more than a measure of how people react to biased wording. A Rassmussen poll that worded the question with a bias in the other direction got the opposite results - only 26% of the respondents were OK with the scheme.
If there were just a way to extract energy from the ambient environment in some sort of reasonably efficient fashion we could build these datacenters in warmer areas, deserts even. All that 120-degree desert in africa would suddenly become valuable real-estate.
> I didn't even know there was a 4, much less a 5 coming.
It's one redeeming feature was the gorgeous CGI for the bad-ass bad-guys, but everything else, particularly the story, was nothing very memorable even though it starred Christian Bale.
> How do you motivate people to do jobs that society needs done, but which everyone would prefer someone else do?
Robots. I am not joking. When we get to the point where all the crappy jobs can be done by robots we are going to have mass unemployment because lots of people will choose to do nothing instead of something higher up the food chain.
And I don't think that is such a bad thing. A life spent doing nothing is really no less meaningful than a life spent working a shit job, but it is a much less shitty life. As a society we should embrace the idea of getting to the point where everybody can afford to live idle lives, right now only the rich can do that.
> There's no good reason to do this other than to screw with the marketplace.
This is what happens when there is less competition. We need AMD or some other company to scare Intel into competing on quality rather than artificial scarcity.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure the government doesn't care about your purchase history of... an inflatable love goat and a 55 gallon drum of lube. Nice. Your file still says "Mostly Harmless."
Until that day comes that they DO care. Like say, you end up a prominent civil rights leader.
Ever wonder how much of the Occupy movement was derailed by quiet government pressure on key people?
Did you read the link I posted?
The CIA is one of Amazon's biggest customers.
After what they did to the CEO of Qwest for refusing to cooperate I doubt Bezos is going to put those big contracts and his personal freedom at risk.
This is actually an amazingly brilliant plot,
Except for the fact that directing the x-rays is pretty damn hard so every time you radiate the target, you radiate yourself. The amount of shielding required to prevent that makes portability significantly less practical.
Hopefully many of the mosques in America that encounter radical and/or terrorism sympathetic persons will rise to the occasion and do the same when they hear something actionable,
Yeah, they never do that!
The FBI wasn't spying on mosques to eavesdrop on people agonizing over temptation to eat bacon
Yeah, that's totally why american muslims distrust the FBI.
Man, they sure are dummies to think the FBI was spying on them because of pork!
What I want to know is...what in the hell does intel have on the DoJ to keep getting away with this shit?
They build the CPUs that PRISM runs on, and the CPUs backdoor them a copy of everything hoovered up about DoJ employees.
No, you have framed the issue incorrectly.
Finding people does not require accessing those people's information without authorization. A "secure" social network is one in which the user controls access - today on facebook the user controls access by other users but facebook itself can circumvent that because it is essentially a man in the middle attack.
I don't care to give the idea away for free; the important thing is that such an app(lication) actually comes to life.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. See my original post for an example. The hard part is execution.
> will never happen: requires forethought
No, it only requires forethought by the people who develop it. The developers need to come up with a system that is both reasonably functional and dead easy to use, with all the distributed security stuff is in the background and not the main selling point.
It is kinda like piracy and DRM - you only need one pirate to rip / crack something and it will end being spread by thousands of people who don't even think about how it was originally cracked.
Facebook and other social networks are useful because they host your pictures. That is not as useful as it once was because phones have much more storage space and much faster networking than they did 7 years ago.
I'd like to see a social network app that runs on phones (and PCs, and even big servers for people who need major horsepower because they have a lot of "friends" like celebrities). Maybe with the ability to backstop your media on a variety of sources like dropbox, or even a bittorrent swarm of all your "friends" so that when your phone is turned off, or out of cell bandwidth (versus wifi bandwidth) your friends can still get access to your shared media.
Facebook is "over centralized" in that anyone on facebook is equally close to you all the same server farms - but that ignores the entire point of having friends. All we need is a system where your phone knows about the ip addresses of the people on your friends list. It is OK if it takes a lot longer find the people who are not your friends list because accessing their data is going to be pretty rare.
Yes, and have the distance between you eyes adjusted, lower your nose, change the bridge of your nose, and sink your cheek bones, flatten your forehead, pin your ears back, and lower them as well, change your jaw line.
Much of those can be fuzzed by avoiding a dead-on camera angle. My understanding is that most DMV's require you to look directly into the camera (and not smile), but you may get a camera operator who doesn't give a damn. The last time I had to get a DMV photo taken I was able to turn my head to the left and down with a big smirk. The ladies running the camera laughed their asses off at my picture, I really look goofy - and let it pass.
Any facial recog software is going to have to work extra hard to calculate things like distance between eyes / nose / mouth / jaw from that picture. I'm sure really smart software could interpolate a 3D model of my face - but the incentive for that kind of software to be applied is minimal when the vast majority of DMV photos are dead-on and expressionless.
Also, why does nobody remember the "always on" feature of the MS Teleprompt?
Because nobody knows wtf that is.
I forgot to add:
Hong Kong currently allows indefinite stay for anyone petitioning for asylum, no questions asked.
And why would this guy go to Hong Kong of all the places he could go?
Six reasons why choosing Hong Kong is a brilliant move by Edward Snowden.
doesn't mean that there aren't other mechanisms in place to collect a lot more data without specific requests. For example, the NSA could be collecting data where Facebook's servers connect to the Internet.
Apparently SSL encryption at all of the large internet corps is handled by dedicated front-ends - and the network between the SSL front-ends and the real guts of entities like facebook, google, etc are all in the clear. That makes for a perfect location for the NSA to drop their sniffers in, no need to compromise any SSL certs at all, no forward secrecy, etc, just wide open traffic perfect for raw harvesting.
And, of course, you have to assume that the Utah data center is going to be used to store something, and it ain't gonna be data obtained from just 20000 Facebook-related requests, because those would fit on my hard drive.
I think that bears repeating - the NSA ain't building data silos (there are others, like one in san antonio, texas) that consume as much electricity as a small city for nothing. They are collecting literally tons of data on us, its gotta be coming from somewhere.
I simply cannot wrap my head around this. How is it in public's interest to be constantly surveiled in violation of the bill of rights?
That is what happens when the people in power become convinced of their own righteousness. It is not an evil plot, it is simply the natural result of fact that basically no one ever thinks of themselves as the bad guy. So if they are the good guys, then whatever they do must also be good. They convince themselves that any harmful side-effects truly are minimal (easy to do when the side-effects don't impact them directly) and are a necessary cost for the greater good.
Kim Dotcom's main business seems to be publicity for Kim Dotcom, with the evidence postponed to a future date.
Seems the guy has decided that he wants to fight this out in the court of public opinion. That's his right, especially given some of the public statements the US government has made about him one could even say that they started it.
When John Key is done with politics, he'll be packing his bags and leaving New Zealand for his very nice place in Hawaii.
Sounds like Ferdinand Marcos...
The recent Pew poll indicating a majority of Americans are okay with warrantless data aggregation is merely a sign of the times to come.
No, the recent Pew poll was nothing more than a measure of how people react to biased wording. A Rassmussen poll that worded the question with a bias in the other direction got the opposite results - only 26% of the respondents were OK with the scheme.
If there were just a way to extract energy from the ambient environment in some sort of reasonably efficient fashion we could build these datacenters in warmer areas, deserts even. All that 120-degree desert in africa would suddenly become valuable real-estate.
> I didn't even know there was a 4, much less a 5 coming.
It's one redeeming feature was the gorgeous CGI for the bad-ass bad-guys, but everything else, particularly the story, was nothing very memorable even though it starred Christian Bale.
> How do you motivate people to do jobs that society needs done, but which everyone would prefer someone else do?
Robots. I am not joking. When we get to the point where all the crappy jobs can be done by robots we are going to have mass unemployment because lots of people will choose to do nothing instead of something higher up the food chain.
And I don't think that is such a bad thing. A life spent doing nothing is really no less meaningful than a life spent working a shit job, but it is a much less shitty life. As a society we should embrace the idea of getting to the point where everybody can afford to live idle lives, right now only the rich can do that.
> There's no good reason to do this other than to screw with the marketplace.
This is what happens when there is less competition. We need AMD or some other company to scare Intel into competing on quality rather than artificial scarcity.
Bet she won't be wearing those into an airport anytime soon!
They got help from the NSA's spy-gadget development labs.