Security has to constantly evolve to meet evolving problems. Hardware can't do that.
Is that really true? Firmware can be updated. Hardware components that can be read during system initialization can be added. There are at least some possibilities.
SecureBoot doesn't ensure that your are booting is signed by someone you trust.
Maybe what's needed is an additional piece like a programmable smart card that could carry a list of trusted sources. Then you could customize each system for exactly what is to be trusted on it in a hard to hack form. (Assuming the card reader is read only on that system.)
If it had been single payer it wouldn't have passed. It barely had enough support as it was. The rewrites tended to be sweeteners to try to lure in more votes. The rewrites didn't fundamentally change the nature of the bill, the writing of which involved progressive think tanks.
Romney was only governor, bills are still passed by the legislature. Who do you think had control of the legislature in Massachusetts? And the Blue Dog Democrats? They are an endangered species, attacked from the left by progressives and running against Republicans. There were never that many in recent years to begin with. There were other ways the Congress could have expanded coverage without trying to reshape the entire market, but the Democrats didn't want to do that. Democrats are liberals with few exceptions today. They are still constrained by what the voters will support and by how many seats they hold.
I won't speculate on your motives for making such easily disproven claim about Snowden's character.
Your statement is in essence a defense of Snowden's character. The issue of character is explicitly raised in your post. I responded to that statement. My response has nothing to do with the GP post. And even if the GP post was faulty in the second half of the post, the first half was a reasonable issue to explore, i.e. Snowden's seemingly vast access to what should be compartmentalized information which would seem to raise even more issues. My response directly questions Snowden's character on its own merits.
Obamacare is a Republican idea. That's the reason that it's a byzantine maze of profiteering middlemen: Republicans love their corporate welfare.
Liberals originally wanted single-payer system like that found in most civilized countries.
I'm sorry, but I can't let you abuse history like that. The Affordable Care Act was written by Democrats and passed by Democrats, with little if any input from Republicans. It was Progressives that had input, not Republicans:
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was passed with only 1 Republican vote from the sources I see. 1 Republican in the House, and 0 in the Senate voted for it. The Democrats wrote it, the Democrats passed it, a Democrat President signed it, the Democrats own it from start to finish.. You can't legitimately blame this on Republicans in any way. It's time to grow up and own up.
Even if you want to associate the Republicans or conservatives with having shared the idea for it in some way in the past, there is an issue:
In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:
If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.
Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.
The Democrats still own it completely, much to their growing discomfort.
I understand your attraction to the single payer model. It is true, they could have tried to go that way, but I don't think there was enough political support to do it. There are other ways they could have gone as well that might have been better than what they got. Instead Congress passed a bill on a pretty much party line vote that was whatever they could scrape off the wall in the hopes of just passing anything and then patching it up after it passed. I guess we'll find out what the consequences are.
Nixon was not only a fervent supporter of the Clean Air Act, the first federal law designed to control air pollution on the national level; he also gave us the Environmental Protection Agency. The creation of the EPA represented an expansion of government that would face fierce opposition were it being debated today. The EPA is also one of the agencies on Capitol Hill that the business community most detests—along with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which polices working conditions. OSHA is another Nixon creation.
Herbert Stein, chief economic adviser during the administrations of Nixon and Gerald Ford, once remarked: “Probably more new regulation was imposed on the economy during the Nixon administration than in any other presidency since the New Deal.”
How many remember that Nixon was a champion of affirmative action? “Incredible but true”, as Fortune magazine put it in 1994 when Nixon died, “It was the Nixonites that gave us employment quotas.” Though many credit John F. Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson with initiating affirmative action, it was rather Richard Nixon who first sanctioned formal goals and time frames to break barriers to minority employment.
Social Security benefits, a cornerstone of the Democratic Party platform, were also crucial to Nixon’s policies. He ushered in a minimum tax on the wealthy and supported a guaranteed income for all Americans, a move that would rile today’s Republicans to unprecedented heights.
And finally, consider health care: Nixon’s proposed reform would have required employers to buy health insurance for their employees and subsidize those who couldn’t afford it. Nixon’s version of national health care was a far more liberal concept than Bill Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s—and it failed because of Democratic opposition, not lack of support from Nixon’s own party. (Ted Kennedy later said that opposing Nixon’s health-care plan was one of his biggest political regrets.)
The interview makes it clear that he must have lied from the beginning to get his job, and that he planned from the start to steal classified documents. He wasn't an innocent that was confronted by wrongdoing and then made an ethical choice. This addresses the question of his character. His employer would never have hired him, nor would he have received a security clearance for his new position if he hadn't lied repeatedly. And that is before you consider his behavior in fleeing the country and beyond.
Not everyone can use Bin Laden's method due to concerns of timeliness, flexibility, and possibly bandwidth. You seem to be claiming that they wouldn't alter their communications methods in the face of reports that they are. You aren't offering any proof to challenge the report, only argument. You're waving the hand and chanting, "This isn't really happening."
It sound like they aren't really making use of mandatory access control and labeling information. I would have expected that they would. Either that or Snowden bypassed the access controls, which should have thrown an audit alert. So maybe they aren't keeping up with log audits. Dealing with Mandatory Access Controls can be a pain, but it could reduce the opportunity for this sort of thing.
Simple. Do good, make people working for you feel they're doing something good for the world.
There have been many different conceptions of what constitute "good."
Many people thought that fascism was "good" for Weimar Germany, and some believe it today, and not just for Germany. Many people thought that Soviet Communism was "good" for the people of the Soviet Union and the world. Some still think that today. Many people think that living under the strict rules of Sharia is "good," democracy is a decadent evil, and imposing Sharia on others is their obligation. Many people think that Snowden is doing good, no matter what the consequences turn out to be. The people at the NSA probably believe* that they are doing good by protecting the US and its allies from another Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
The infamous spy Kim Philby probably thought that he was doing the world a service by being a Communist spy so that the benefits of Communism would advance. Vidkun Quisling probably felt that he was working for the future of Norway when he betrayed his country to the German fascists.
"Do good" isn't really an adequate prescription unless you specify the value system.
* Just guessing, I have no actual experience there.
The UK has a EU treaty obligation to Sweden to honor its arrest warrants. The UK had Assange under arrest and allowed him to escape. Assange is still in the territory of the UK hiding in an embassy. It is up to the UK to take him into custody again. If they don't watch Assange's location continuously, he will escape. I think referring to Sweden as "a bully "across the pond"" is a bit extravagant. Sweden is a fellow member of the EU since 1995. The "special relationship" that is relevant here are the EU treaties. This information has been made clear many times. It is puzzling why you don't recognize this.
You again? Well, I guess you're a half step up from the look alike trolls that were hounding me: coid fjord , co1d fjord I don't think your purpose is much different. I'll be interested to see if you start posting about "mycleanpc."
Yeah, like money is all that matters to them.
It isn't all that matters to them, but the government is under considerable financial strain and is making cutbacks of all sorts. They don't want to waste money if they can avoid it. Having to keep watch over Assange so that they can fulfill their EU treaty obligation to Sweden to extradite him is quite expensive and consumes resources that could be put to better purposes. Not that you would actually care about the UK's financial problems.
Again, I ask people to look through past posts of "Cold Fjord" and look for patterns. They're pretty easy to spot.
Well, that's a no-brainer, I have a different viewpoint from that of many other participants on Slashdot. Maybe you haven't noticed, but between the many Europeans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, American progressives, and various other people from around the world, the left is over represented compared to various societies. Different viewpoints don't constitute a conspiracy.
Cute idea you have to drive up web traffic at your site though, including hosting a story from Der Spiegel.
My goal here is let as many people as possible know about those tools so that they may use them to protect themselves (and the forums they use) from the likes of "Cold Fjord".
It looks to me like your purpose is to harass, stifle dissent, and drive up your web traffic. But maybe I'm being hasty. Maybe people will fear giving me bad moderation? (Hmm, hadn't thought about that.) Either way, you do seem to be interested in creating fear in people and peddling crank ideas. Take the line below in this post of yours:
This is East Germany, all over again--the NSA literally has us spying on each other, inadvertently or not. Secrecy=Fear=the need for secrecy
Who is it doing all this mutual spying? The idea is nonsense. But it does play into your fear inducing agenda, including your attempts to make people suspicious and fear me. You are engaging in the very same sort of behavior you seem to be complaining about.
But hey, if it works out to my advantage: Anachragnome thinks I am an NSA plant. He wants people to visit his web site to view documents and perhaps for other unknown purposes. (The visit will leave a web trail. His site is known to NSA.) If he is correct, you may end up on a government list by giving me bad moderation. Apparently the only people that disagree with him are spies. Bow to his power, or you may be branded a "shill" and "forum breaker." Follow his fear. He expects you to inform on each other. Obey him, or you may be branded a traitor.
The UK has a treaty obligation to honor EU arrest warrants. I doubt the UK will be compensated for this. They had Assange in custody and didn't keep control of him. Now Assange is sheltered in a foreign embassy and there is no reason for him to emerge. If they don't watch him, he could escape completely.
You've pretty much already made the argument. Try reading your post again. It is self explanatory. Or maybe try this, "Are you blaming the house catching fire on the guy playing with matches?"
That would be Edward Snowden, the man who took a contractor job under false pretenses to steal what top secret classified information he could in 90 days. He then fled the United States for a city in the People's Republic of China, after which he fled to Russia due to an extradition request. Since his flight he has been dispensing classified information that has resulted in the compromise of secret intelligence programs and strained diplomatic relationships among multiple allied countries. He is currently under the protection of Russia's President Putin, a former career KGB officer, while he awaits the results of his applications for asylum. So far it appears he has three countries willing to offer him asylum, all are Latin American countries with an ideological disposition hostile to the US. The disposition of Snowden's four laptops of top secret data is unknown. The final damage toll of Snowden's actions will not be known for some time as he continues to leak information and terrorists groups are altering their communication methods in light of Snowden's leaks.
Despite applying to at least 20 countries for refuge to avoid U.S. prosecutors, Snowden’s choices now seem to boil down to a "trifecta" offer of asylum by three leftist and vocally anti-Washington, Latin American nations: Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia. And maybe also Iceland. -- more
Most NDA's don't involve Top Secret intelligence information. Who did the asking, by the way? You may remember that the UK warned airlines that they would be liable for all expenses for handling Snowden (arrest, confinement, etc.) if they brought Snowden to the UK. The UK has no interest in dumping money down the well like they've had to with Assange.
The measures taken so far pretty much confirms that everything Snowden has said is true.
The measures taken by the government to take Snowden into custody only confirm that he is wanted for a serious violation of the law. That doesn't confirm in any way any specific claim he has made any more than a felony warrant confirms the claim of any other fugitive that "I didn't do it! I'm innocent!"
Slashdot Mirror
Security has to constantly evolve to meet evolving problems. Hardware can't do that.
Is that really true? Firmware can be updated. Hardware components that can be read during system initialization can be added. There are at least some possibilities.
SecureBoot doesn't ensure that your are booting is signed by someone you trust.
Maybe what's needed is an additional piece like a programmable smart card that could carry a list of trusted sources. Then you could customize each system for exactly what is to be trusted on it in a hard to hack form. (Assuming the card reader is read only on that system.)
If it had been single payer it wouldn't have passed. It barely had enough support as it was. The rewrites tended to be sweeteners to try to lure in more votes. The rewrites didn't fundamentally change the nature of the bill, the writing of which involved progressive think tanks.
Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"
With the bill they passed, Democrats may have ended affordable, quality healthcare.
PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’
Romney was only governor, bills are still passed by the legislature. Who do you think had control of the legislature in Massachusetts? And the Blue Dog Democrats? They are an endangered species, attacked from the left by progressives and running against Republicans. There were never that many in recent years to begin with. There were other ways the Congress could have expanded coverage without trying to reshape the entire market, but the Democrats didn't want to do that. Democrats are liberals with few exceptions today. They are still constrained by what the voters will support and by how many seats they hold.
I won't speculate on your motives for making such easily disproven claim about Snowden's character.
Your statement is in essence a defense of Snowden's character. The issue of character is explicitly raised in your post. I responded to that statement. My response has nothing to do with the GP post. And even if the GP post was faulty in the second half of the post, the first half was a reasonable issue to explore, i.e. Snowden's seemingly vast access to what should be compartmentalized information which would seem to raise even more issues. My response directly questions Snowden's character on its own merits.
Here's a little assist with the history. You're a bit off.
ObamaCare's Heritage
Sorry, but that is nonsense. You touched on the question of character (shall I quote you again?), I addressed the question of his character.
Obamacare is a Republican idea. That's the reason that it's a byzantine maze of profiteering middlemen: Republicans love their corporate welfare.
Liberals originally wanted single-payer system like that found in most civilized countries.
I'm sorry, but I can't let you abuse history like that. The Affordable Care Act was written by Democrats and passed by Democrats, with little if any input from Republicans. It was Progressives that had input, not Republicans:
Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was passed with only 1 Republican vote from the sources I see. 1 Republican in the House, and 0 in the Senate voted for it. The Democrats wrote it, the Democrats passed it, a Democrat President signed it, the Democrats own it from start to finish.. You can't legitimately blame this on Republicans in any way. It's time to grow up and own up.
Even if you want to associate the Republicans or conservatives with having shared the idea for it in some way in the past, there is an issue:
ObamaCare's Heritage
In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:
If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.
Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.
The Democrats still own it completely, much to their growing discomfort.
PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’
I understand your attraction to the single payer model. It is true, they could have tried to go that way, but I don't think there was enough political support to do it. There are other ways they could have gone as well that might have been better than what they got. Instead Congress passed a bill on a pretty much party line vote that was whatever they could scrape off the wall in the hopes of just passing anything and then patching it up after it passed. I guess we'll find out what the consequences are.
PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’
You might find some irony in this:
Richard Nixon -- the last great liberal
Nixon was not only a fervent supporter of the Clean Air Act, the first federal law designed to control air pollution on the national level; he also gave us the Environmental Protection Agency. The creation of the EPA represented an expansion of government that would face fierce opposition were it being debated today. The EPA is also one of the agencies on Capitol Hill that the business community most detests—along with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which polices working conditions. OSHA is another Nixon creation.
Herbert Stein, chief economic adviser during the administrations of Nixon and Gerald Ford, once remarked: “Probably more new regulation was imposed on the economy during the Nixon administration than in any other presidency since the New Deal.”
How many remember that Nixon was a champion of affirmative action? “Incredible but true”, as Fortune magazine put it in 1994 when Nixon died, “It was the Nixonites that gave us employment quotas.” Though many credit John F. Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson with initiating affirmative action, it was rather Richard Nixon who first sanctioned formal goals and time frames to break barriers to minority employment.
Social Security benefits, a cornerstone of the Democratic Party platform, were also crucial to Nixon’s policies. He ushered in a minimum tax on the wealthy and supported a guaranteed income for all Americans, a move that would rile today’s Republicans to unprecedented heights.
And finally, consider health care: Nixon’s proposed reform would have required employers to buy health insurance for their employees and subsidize those who couldn’t afford it. Nixon’s version of national health care was a far more liberal concept than Bill Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s—and it failed because of Democratic opposition, not lack of support from Nixon’s own party. (Ted Kennedy later said that opposing Nixon’s health-care plan was one of his biggest political regrets.)
The interview makes it clear that he must have lied from the beginning to get his job, and that he planned from the start to steal classified documents. He wasn't an innocent that was confronted by wrongdoing and then made an ethical choice. This addresses the question of his character. His employer would never have hired him, nor would he have received a security clearance for his new position if he hadn't lied repeatedly. And that is before you consider his behavior in fleeing the country and beyond.
Not everyone can use Bin Laden's method due to concerns of timeliness, flexibility, and possibly bandwidth. You seem to be claiming that they wouldn't alter their communications methods in the face of reports that they are. You aren't offering any proof to challenge the report, only argument. You're waving the hand and chanting, "This isn't really happening."
Do you know him?
It sound like they aren't really making use of mandatory access control and labeling information. I would have expected that they would. Either that or Snowden bypassed the access controls, which should have thrown an audit alert. So maybe they aren't keeping up with log audits. Dealing with Mandatory Access Controls can be a pain, but it could reduce the opportunity for this sort of thing.
Then there is the vetting process:
NSA leaker Snowden’s clearance had ‘problems’; firm that vetted him under probe
I have no idea who you are, and don't really care. And I doubt you can really prove it one way or another.
Simple. Do good, make people working for you feel they're doing something good for the world.
There have been many different conceptions of what constitute "good."
Many people thought that fascism was "good" for Weimar Germany, and some believe it today, and not just for Germany.
Many people thought that Soviet Communism was "good" for the people of the Soviet Union and the world. Some still think that today.
Many people think that living under the strict rules of Sharia is "good," democracy is a decadent evil, and imposing Sharia on others is their obligation.
Many people think that Snowden is doing good, no matter what the consequences turn out to be.
The people at the NSA probably believe* that they are doing good by protecting the US and its allies from another Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
The infamous spy Kim Philby probably thought that he was doing the world a service by being a Communist spy so that the benefits of Communism would advance. Vidkun Quisling probably felt that he was working for the future of Norway when he betrayed his country to the German fascists.
"Do good" isn't really an adequate prescription unless you specify the value system.
* Just guessing, I have no actual experience there.
The UK has a EU treaty obligation to Sweden to honor its arrest warrants. The UK had Assange under arrest and allowed him to escape. Assange is still in the territory of the UK hiding in an embassy. It is up to the UK to take him into custody again. If they don't watch Assange's location continuously, he will escape. I think referring to Sweden as "a bully "across the pond"" is a bit extravagant. Sweden is a fellow member of the EU since 1995. The "special relationship" that is relevant here are the EU treaties. This information has been made clear many times. It is puzzling why you don't recognize this.
You again? Well, I guess you're a half step up from the look alike trolls that were hounding me: coid fjord , co1d fjord I don't think your purpose is much different. I'll be interested to see if you start posting about "mycleanpc."
Yeah, like money is all that matters to them.
It isn't all that matters to them, but the government is under considerable financial strain and is making cutbacks of all sorts. They don't want to waste money if they can avoid it. Having to keep watch over Assange so that they can fulfill their EU treaty obligation to Sweden to extradite him is quite expensive and consumes resources that could be put to better purposes. Not that you would actually care about the UK's financial problems.
Again, I ask people to look through past posts of "Cold Fjord" and look for patterns. They're pretty easy to spot.
Well, that's a no-brainer, I have a different viewpoint from that of many other participants on Slashdot. Maybe you haven't noticed, but between the many Europeans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, American progressives, and various other people from around the world, the left is over represented compared to various societies. Different viewpoints don't constitute a conspiracy.
Cute idea you have to drive up web traffic at your site though, including hosting a story from Der Spiegel.
My goal here is let as many people as possible know about those tools so that they may use them to protect themselves (and the forums they use) from the likes of "Cold Fjord".
It looks to me like your purpose is to harass, stifle dissent, and drive up your web traffic. But maybe I'm being hasty. Maybe people will fear giving me bad moderation? (Hmm, hadn't thought about that.) Either way, you do seem to be interested in creating fear in people and peddling crank ideas. Take the line below in this post of yours:
This is East Germany, all over again--the NSA literally has us spying on each other, inadvertently or not. Secrecy=Fear=the need for secrecy
Who is it doing all this mutual spying? The idea is nonsense. But it does play into your fear inducing agenda, including your attempts to make people suspicious and fear me. You are engaging in the very same sort of behavior you seem to be complaining about.
But hey, if it works out to my advantage: Anachragnome thinks I am an NSA plant. He wants people to visit his web site to view documents and perhaps for other unknown purposes. (The visit will leave a web trail. His site is known to NSA.) If he is correct, you may end up on a government list by giving me bad moderation. Apparently the only people that disagree with him are spies. Bow to his power, or you may be branded a "shill" and "forum breaker." Follow his fear. He expects you to inform on each other. Obey him, or you may be branded a traitor.
How's that?
‘Bingo’: Iowahawk sums up the jobs report in one tweet about Taco Bell
David Burge @iowahawkblog
Unemployment report in a nutshell: the Taco Bell that had 30 40 hour workers now has 40 30 hour workers.
Behind the Dismal Jobs Numbers: The ‘New’ Economy Takes Shape
The UK has a treaty obligation to honor EU arrest warrants. I doubt the UK will be compensated for this. They had Assange in custody and didn't keep control of him. Now Assange is sheltered in a foreign embassy and there is no reason for him to emerge. If they don't watch him, he could escape completely.
You've pretty much already made the argument. Try reading your post again. It is self explanatory. Or maybe try this, "Are you blaming the house catching fire on the guy playing with matches?"
I won't speculate on your motives for making such easily disproven claim about Snowden's character.
Snowden to newspaper: I took contractor job to gather evidence
That would be Edward Snowden, the man who took a contractor job under false pretenses to steal what top secret classified information he could in 90 days. He then fled the United States for a city in the People's Republic of China, after which he fled to Russia due to an extradition request. Since his flight he has been dispensing classified information that has resulted in the compromise of secret intelligence programs and strained diplomatic relationships among multiple allied countries. He is currently under the protection of Russia's President Putin, a former career KGB officer, while he awaits the results of his applications for asylum. So far it appears he has three countries willing to offer him asylum, all are Latin American countries with an ideological disposition hostile to the US. The disposition of Snowden's four laptops of top secret data is unknown. The final damage toll of Snowden's actions will not be known for some time as he continues to leak information and terrorists groups are altering their communication methods in light of Snowden's leaks.
Despite applying to at least 20 countries for refuge to avoid U.S. prosecutors, Snowden’s choices now seem to boil down to a "trifecta" offer of asylum by three leftist and vocally anti-Washington, Latin American nations: Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia. And maybe also Iceland. -- more
Screw dangerous, I'm wondering how those fish *taste*.
Old.
That would be submersion...
I've heard intelligence agencies were concerned about their sources. I guess this would be a clearcase.
Most NDA's don't involve Top Secret intelligence information. Who did the asking, by the way? You may remember that the UK warned airlines that they would be liable for all expenses for handling Snowden (arrest, confinement, etc.) if they brought Snowden to the UK. The UK has no interest in dumping money down the well like they've had to with Assange.
The measures taken so far pretty much confirms that everything Snowden has said is true.
The measures taken by the government to take Snowden into custody only confirm that he is wanted for a serious violation of the law. That doesn't confirm in any way any specific claim he has made any more than a felony warrant confirms the claim of any other fugitive that "I didn't do it! I'm innocent!"