Step 1: Refuse to open your laptop Step 2: Have laptop confiscated Step 3: File fifth amendment charges
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Is there a law that says you can take my laptop with absolutely no evidence of its contents?
nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation If you're taking my laptop for the public interest, e.g. national security, then you can immediately buy me a nice shiny new one.
Sleepwalking? Seriously. I would love to know how searching the contents of a laptop has got anything to do with security, or how anyone tolerates this kind of behavior. Is the laptop a bomb? No? Then I pass security. Thanks.
If I had anything I didn't want customs looking at I could, after all, encrypt it, upload it somewhere - anywhere, and download it again when I get through customs. I could stick it on a flash drive and put it in the mail. Further, the article summary is very worrisome - how far can they go? Asking you to hand over logins to remote services such as Internet based mail is crazy.
Customs and TSA are so out of control that I won't even use the airports here nowadays.
Very interesting. That does not solve the issue with Firefox's master password prompting, but it is a very interesting idea for creating passwords, assuming that it uses a strong hash algorithm.
I don't know about you, but I have registrations at dozens of sites, which means I can either:
* Use the same secure password at many and remember it, placing my trust in the security of others who I've never met * Use many easy to remember and thus weak passwords * Store my passwords somewhere. The browser makes sense, since it can conveniently enter them, and assuming it had a good master password implementation it should be secure.
However, per my previous post, Firefox's master password implementation is seriously irritating, to the point that I don't enable it except when serious exploits are announced and remain unpatched.
Yes, but that is a bad workaround, because now any kind of exploit enabling code execution can still gets access to the entire password list, thus defeating the purpose of the master password. After all, if it weren't for remote exploits, machines with only a single local user wouldn't need a master password.
Yes, although only in conjunction with something like Firefox's master password to encrypt them.
This brings up my greatest grip with Firefox: If you visit any site that you have stored a password for and you have a master password set, the damn thing pops open a request for any page that contains a password field. Take Slashdot or Digg, for example. If I'm browsing either of these sites almost every page I open requests a master password. You can turn off form auto-fill in about:config (not very end-user friendly), but then Firefox seems to have no method at all for causing the stored passwords to be filled in the page, unless I'm missing something. All in all, Firefox has some issues when it comes to password storage.
Do you have a better way to store all your passwords?
Please do not allow the RIAA to bully you into promoting their affiliated eStores (e.g. iTunes) on your campuses. In order to provide legal alternatives, please work with smaller entities or even free services to grow and promote them and firmly raise your finger to those who buy our politicians and make our children targets for litigation.
I don't see how they can possibly kill off XP this early. It's pretty evident that Vista in its current form is not as solid as it ought to be for many people, and SP1 has only just gone RTM. Your next generation platform ought to be solid before you ask *cough* force *cough* people to migrate.
I would like to see a performance comparison. Contrary to what you might believe (most products being based on AES, at least by default), there seems to be quite some scope for optimization. Here is one online comparison.
I'd like to see someone benchmark TC FDE versus something like Compusec, which seems to be leading in the aforementioned comparison.
Additionally, I'll comment that this does not take away "the final excuse". There is way too much software jumping all over the bootloader these days. I use a version management product called Rollback RX, for example, that lets you roll your drive (as Windows sees it) back in time to previous snapshots, and I'm pretty sure that installing TC FDE on this drive would kill Rollback.
It's about time that there was some standard for chaining bootloader software so that I didn't have to choose one or the other.
Showing football was likely a way to get more people to come out to the church so they can see what the staff are like etc. It's hardly an abuse of funds. Yes it is. Maybe they should "get more people to come out to the church" by showing the latest movies, also with no license. What's the difference?
since its in a place where people aren't going to exacly be comftorable sitting down for the entire 3 hours of the game and it's not something I'd consider a viable alternative of going to the game If people aren't going to be comfortable watching the game there, and it's not a viable alternative of going to the game, then why would it make people come out to the church?
Maybe a good clean way of watching the game in comparison to a sports bar. Alternatively, I'm sure the NFL would tell you that a good clean way of watching the game is to get in on cable/satellite/pay per view/any other licensed outlet.
Churches should not get a free ride for events that have absolutely nothing to do with their religious purposes.
I personally am wondering what business is it of a church to host a Superbowl party? If you want to play host to a congregation and discuss your religion, or provide a place to worship, that's fine. If you want to get a bunch of people together for the Superbowl then with respect to that particular event you are no different than anyone else hosting a Superbowl party and you should not be treated any differently either.
I'm Hearing Year of the Linux Machine around here a lot again (again, or continuously... you decide).
Strangely, I've yet to hear a kind word from the normals in the real world. Maybe you missed the ASUS Eee PC and the Everex gPC that Walmart has been selling?
Maybe this Linux thing isn't catching on quite as much as you think it is. Maybe. But one thing that is catching on is "anything but Vista". I personally will hang on to XP for as long as I can, and then I will at least invest a reasonable amount of time looking at Linux or Mac before making a final call on Vista. I've used it plenty at work and it's been nothing but pain for me so far. I understand that there are also those that love Vista, or find it's no worse than anything else on offer. However, I think it's probably fair to say that dissatisfaction with Vista is probably greater than with any other OS in a long time, and that will boost Linux conversions.
Here is what I wonder: How will the suites that provide emulation and Windows-compatible API hosts deal with Vista? Will they too eventually have to implement all kinds of crazy code that changes the way the Windows API behaves to make calls respond like they do in Vista, add in all the various "compatibility" and "security" shims that Vista implements to make newer Windows apps behave properly? After all, the developers will have built and tested their applications in this environment.
I wonder how projects such as Wine will ultimately deal with this issue.
LAN's are not only about privacy and security, but also:
* Putting you in control of your own infrastructure * Ensuring quality of service (e.g. bandwidth that is not shared with the rest of the world) * Managing your own costs.. and more. Of course, as far as privacy and security is concerned, if the LAN goes away and we use an open network, the Government is going to be free to snoop on whatever traffic they like. Queue the "encryption" fanatics...
If a single copy of a CD has a value of $1.5M, how can you justify letting hundreds of thousands of copies on it sit on the shelves of major retailers worldwide, priced at gasp $10-$20?
This suggests that if I were to publish a copy of a CD online , even assuming it retails at $20, I would have to serve 75,000 copies of it personally to justify that infringement penalty. Consider that the only feasible way for me to do such a thing is to torrent it, and in this case I personally am not responsible for the entire distribution, the total distribution must be subdivided across every single person who downloads a copy, because they are also uploaders. Claiming penalties against every distributor for the total distribution is like double taxation, but tens of thousands of times worse - I should not be liable for the activities of others, except to the extent you can prove that I facilitated the very first unlicensed distribution and that said unlicensed distribution was directly responsible for the entire cascade of further infringement, and that all other copies of the works were suitably protected.
This raises the prospect of engineering life forms with genetic code not possible within nature It seems to me that if these life forms are viable, then this genetic code is possible in nature, it simply may not be known to exist.
Imagine if the postal service did that: I have to pay to mail you a letter, and then you have to pay to receive it. Better yet, you have no choice but to receive it and the postal service will bill you for it. Imagine all that spam you get in your mailbox costing 10c each. This is how SMS is charged on most US carriers.
With the ludicrous fees associated with SMS (dollars per byte), if I pay several cents for a 160 character message it ought to get delivered without charges on the other end (including that persons bundled SMS "allowance").
Oh, I give a damn. I don't use a credit card, I pay cash for almost everything.
At the same time I walk around all day with a cell-phone in my pocket and I expect most everyone here does also. You already know the US government is listening to all of your calls, what makes you think they're not tracking your location and who you associate with also? But you don't disconnect the battery from your cell phone when you're not making calls, do you? Well there you go, you aren't standing up for your privacy!
My point was not that you shouldn't stand up for yourself, it is that there are cases when you don't have a choice, and that if RFID becomes too widespread too quickly none of us may have a realistic choice.
thats the same mentality that's got your country all messed up with a 2 party polical system I assume you are implying that I am an American. You sir, would be incorrect.
Voting with your wallet is effective only when a large number of people do it. Take Walmart for example - you can easily find lots of people who claim a Walmart has ruined their neighborhood, but as long as thousands of others hand over their cash to get the cheaper goods on offer it doesn't make any difference. If you suffer for your cause, but your suffering has no impact, why make yourself suffer?
RFID is poised to go this way - I don't like it either, but unless it's widely rejected a handful of people protesting it won't make the difference. The best plan for RFID proponents is to make it so widespread so quickly that you have no option but to buy essential goods that are RFID tagged, and once you start doing that, why avoid some goods and not others?
We're heading for a recession. Oh come on now, Vista Ultimate is only $320 + shipping + tax! I'm a developer and computing enthusiast, and I've paid that much for a new OS every few.. well, uh.. never.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I only read the summary and I completely understand that there are different sizes of these Higgs Boson thingies that can be heavy or light, but the light ones are the red-headed step children of the higgs boson family in that nobody really wants one, and that they may or may not interact with things in particle accelerators and/or each other, and that most of them are named with letters near the end of the alphabet.
I now feel fully qualified to provide insightful comments and am ready to receive your positive mod points!
In hacker culture, a script kiddie (occasionally script bunny, skidie, script kitty, script-running juvenile (SRJ), or similar) is a derogatory term used for an inexperienced malicious cracker who uses programs developed by others to attack computer systems, and deface websites. It is generally assumed that script kiddies are kids who lack the ability to write sophisticated hacking programs on their own,[1] and that their objective is to try to impress their friends or gain credit in underground cracker communities.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a new problem. There are viruses, for example, that encrypt a file system and demand a ransom for the key.
Gpcode-AI is one example.
Step 2: Have laptop confiscated
Step 3: File fifth amendment charges nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Is there a law that says you can take my laptop with absolutely no evidence of its contents? nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation If you're taking my laptop for the public interest, e.g. national security, then you can immediately buy me a nice shiny new one.
Sleepwalking? Seriously. I would love to know how searching the contents of a laptop has got anything to do with security, or how anyone tolerates this kind of behavior. Is the laptop a bomb? No? Then I pass security. Thanks.
If I had anything I didn't want customs looking at I could, after all, encrypt it, upload it somewhere - anywhere, and download it again when I get through customs. I could stick it on a flash drive and put it in the mail. Further, the article summary is very worrisome - how far can they go? Asking you to hand over logins to remote services such as Internet based mail is crazy.
Customs and TSA are so out of control that I won't even use the airports here nowadays.
Very interesting. That does not solve the issue with Firefox's master password prompting, but it is a very interesting idea for creating passwords, assuming that it uses a strong hash algorithm.
THANK YOU JESUS! .. well, based on your account name, it could be you! I mean, you could be he. Or.. whatever. Thanks! ;)
Why don't they make Firefox work this way in the first place? Seriously...
I don't know about you, but I have registrations at dozens of sites, which means I can either:
* Use the same secure password at many and remember it, placing my trust in the security of others who I've never met
* Use many easy to remember and thus weak passwords
* Store my passwords somewhere. The browser makes sense, since it can conveniently enter them, and assuming it had a good master password implementation it should be secure.
However, per my previous post, Firefox's master password implementation is seriously irritating, to the point that I don't enable it except when serious exploits are announced and remain unpatched.
Yes, but that is a bad workaround, because now any kind of exploit enabling code execution can still gets access to the entire password list, thus defeating the purpose of the master password. After all, if it weren't for remote exploits, machines with only a single local user wouldn't need a master password.
Yes, although only in conjunction with something like Firefox's master password to encrypt them.
This brings up my greatest grip with Firefox: If you visit any site that you have stored a password for and you have a master password set, the damn thing pops open a request for any page that contains a password field. Take Slashdot or Digg, for example. If I'm browsing either of these sites almost every page I open requests a master password. You can turn off form auto-fill in about:config (not very end-user friendly), but then Firefox seems to have no method at all for causing the stored passwords to be filled in the page, unless I'm missing something. All in all, Firefox has some issues when it comes to password storage.
Do you have a better way to store all your passwords?
Please do not allow the RIAA to bully you into promoting their affiliated eStores (e.g. iTunes) on your campuses. In order to provide legal alternatives, please work with smaller entities or even free services to grow and promote them and firmly raise your finger to those who buy our politicians and make our children targets for litigation.
I don't see how they can possibly kill off XP this early. It's pretty evident that Vista in its current form is not as solid as it ought to be for many people, and SP1 has only just gone RTM. Your next generation platform ought to be solid before you ask *cough* force *cough* people to migrate.
I would like to see a performance comparison. Contrary to what you might believe (most products being based on AES, at least by default), there seems to be quite some scope for optimization. Here is one online comparison.
I'd like to see someone benchmark TC FDE versus something like Compusec, which seems to be leading in the aforementioned comparison.
Additionally, I'll comment that this does not take away "the final excuse". There is way too much software jumping all over the bootloader these days. I use a version management product called Rollback RX, for example, that lets you roll your drive (as Windows sees it) back in time to previous snapshots, and I'm pretty sure that installing TC FDE on this drive would kill Rollback.
It's about time that there was some standard for chaining bootloader software so that I didn't have to choose one or the other.
Churches should not get a free ride for events that have absolutely nothing to do with their religious purposes.
I personally am wondering what business is it of a church to host a Superbowl party? If you want to play host to a congregation and discuss your religion, or provide a place to worship, that's fine. If you want to get a bunch of people together for the Superbowl then with respect to that particular event you are no different than anyone else hosting a Superbowl party and you should not be treated any differently either.
Strangely, I've yet to hear a kind word from the normals in the real world. Maybe you missed the ASUS Eee PC and the Everex gPC that Walmart has been selling? Maybe this Linux thing isn't catching on quite as much as you think it is. Maybe. But one thing that is catching on is "anything but Vista". I personally will hang on to XP for as long as I can, and then I will at least invest a reasonable amount of time looking at Linux or Mac before making a final call on Vista. I've used it plenty at work and it's been nothing but pain for me so far. I understand that there are also those that love Vista, or find it's no worse than anything else on offer. However, I think it's probably fair to say that dissatisfaction with Vista is probably greater than with any other OS in a long time, and that will boost Linux conversions.
Here is what I wonder: How will the suites that provide emulation and Windows-compatible API hosts deal with Vista? Will they too eventually have to implement all kinds of crazy code that changes the way the Windows API behaves to make calls respond like they do in Vista, add in all the various "compatibility" and "security" shims that Vista implements to make newer Windows apps behave properly? After all, the developers will have built and tested their applications in this environment.
I wonder how projects such as Wine will ultimately deal with this issue.
LAN's are not only about privacy and security, but also:
.. and more. Of course, as far as privacy and security is concerned, if the LAN goes away and we use an open network, the Government is going to be free to snoop on whatever traffic they like. Queue the "encryption" fanatics...
* Putting you in control of your own infrastructure
* Ensuring quality of service (e.g. bandwidth that is not shared with the rest of the world)
* Managing your own costs
If a single copy of a CD has a value of $1.5M, how can you justify letting hundreds of thousands of copies on it sit on the shelves of major retailers worldwide, priced at gasp $10-$20?
This suggests that if I were to publish a copy of a CD online , even assuming it retails at $20, I would have to serve 75,000 copies of it personally to justify that infringement penalty. Consider that the only feasible way for me to do such a thing is to torrent it, and in this case I personally am not responsible for the entire distribution, the total distribution must be subdivided across every single person who downloads a copy, because they are also uploaders. Claiming penalties against every distributor for the total distribution is like double taxation, but tens of thousands of times worse - I should not be liable for the activities of others, except to the extent you can prove that I facilitated the very first unlicensed distribution and that said unlicensed distribution was directly responsible for the entire cascade of further infringement, and that all other copies of the works were suitably protected.
Complete B.S.
Having to pay to send and receive SMS.
Imagine if the postal service did that: I have to pay to mail you a letter, and then you have to pay to receive it. Better yet, you have no choice but to receive it and the postal service will bill you for it. Imagine all that spam you get in your mailbox costing 10c each. This is how SMS is charged on most US carriers.
With the ludicrous fees associated with SMS (dollars per byte), if I pay several cents for a 160 character message it ought to get delivered without charges on the other end (including that persons bundled SMS "allowance").
Oh, I give a damn. I don't use a credit card, I pay cash for almost everything.
At the same time I walk around all day with a cell-phone in my pocket and I expect most everyone here does also. You already know the US government is listening to all of your calls, what makes you think they're not tracking your location and who you associate with also? But you don't disconnect the battery from your cell phone when you're not making calls, do you? Well there you go, you aren't standing up for your privacy!
My point was not that you shouldn't stand up for yourself, it is that there are cases when you don't have a choice, and that if RFID becomes too widespread too quickly none of us may have a realistic choice.
Voting with your wallet is effective only when a large number of people do it. Take Walmart for example - you can easily find lots of people who claim a Walmart has ruined their neighborhood, but as long as thousands of others hand over their cash to get the cheaper goods on offer it doesn't make any difference. If you suffer for your cause, but your suffering has no impact, why make yourself suffer?
RFID is poised to go this way - I don't like it either, but unless it's widely rejected a handful of people protesting it won't make the difference. The best plan for RFID proponents is to make it so widespread so quickly that you have no option but to buy essential goods that are RFID tagged, and once you start doing that, why avoid some goods and not others?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I only read the summary and I completely understand that there are different sizes of these Higgs Boson thingies that can be heavy or light, but the light ones are the red-headed step children of the higgs boson family in that nobody really wants one, and that they may or may not interact with things in particle accelerators and/or each other, and that most of them are named with letters near the end of the alphabet.
I now feel fully qualified to provide insightful comments and am ready to receive your positive mod points!
This is pretty much the correct usage.
From Wikipedia:
In hacker culture, a script kiddie (occasionally script bunny, skidie, script kitty, script-running juvenile (SRJ), or similar) is a derogatory term used for an inexperienced malicious cracker who uses programs developed by others to attack computer systems, and deface websites. It is generally assumed that script kiddies are kids who lack the ability to write sophisticated hacking programs on their own,[1] and that their objective is to try to impress their friends or gain credit in underground cracker communities.
And that's exactly what's happening.