Because getting money for free makes you lazy (I'm not exempt here, if I got free money I sure wouldn't be working).
If you change it, and say guaranteed job, something uncomfortable like digging ditches (with alternatives for handicapped people), then I would support you. We can have a job office where people can come each day and work. They will be paid by the amount of work they do, not by the hour. They can be paid a good amount, but it can't be comfortable work.
If you change to that I'll support you. I sure won't support giving people free money.
So all college students are lazy because they get financial aid? There is no evidence that free money makes people lazy because people don't work hard for money. Money will make more people show up and go through the motions but it wont make someone want to be the best or be competitive.
the problem is that you don't have a right to food, health care, or housing.
Exactly what do you mean by a "right to food, health care, or housing"? What does that mean? Do you mean that you have the right to have someone provide you with those? If so, who is forced to do the work necessary to provide you with them?
Let the robot slaves do the work. Feed the slaves electricity.
If you want to give out a medal for flying a drone, fine, I don't have a huge problem with it as long as you're great at it. What really irritates me and a lot of other service members is it's ranking in the 'order of precedence'. What I've read is it ranks above some combat medals, specifically the Bronze Star, which is really pissing off the 'boots on the ground' troops and I don't blame them for being mad.
But the nature of combat is constantly changing. Ground troops are still important but their role is going to become less important over time. In the future there will be robots used in certain roles where ground troops are used now. The drone operators and cyber warriors will eventually be the main role.
Combat is about survival and winning. It doesn't matter if you use snipers, nukes, or hackers.
That being said the concept of combat is going to change. Currently cyber soldiers aren't viewed as a combat role but that is going to drastically change in the near future when the enemy begins targeting them directly. Right now it seems like it's not a combat role but people felt that way about the Airforce at first too. The nature of war is going to change and combat will change but anyone who kills or risks being killed for the US Constitution should have our respect.
So what about the people who get income not in the form of wages? They should raise the basic income but there is no basic income yet unless you count welfare and welfare is hard to get and they want to make people pay a fee to get it in North Dakota, see: http://www.topix.com/forum/health/womens-health/TEII96LUBC3DL8UJJ
Because the trend is to turn us into either unemployed, or independent contractors, or temporary workers. An independent contractor can work for lower than minimum wage so the minimum wage doesn't matter when not everyone is paid in wages. Why not minimum income? Why not government guaranteed basic income? Watch this video for more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sDBF_MbflY
Corruption is the problem everywhere, not just in government and not just in the US government. I'm actually more concerned about the corruption workplaces and churches, and while the government is a workplace it's not the only workplace.
The rest of your post is complete nonsense and doesn't even deserve an answer.
The other problem is the mission of Wikileaks was originally to discover corruption. All corruption is local. Wikileaks is global but seemed to exclusively focus on the US government in the last few years. Why? Corruption is all over the world in all kinds of organizations, corporate, government, church, even in organizations similar to wikileaks. So why focus only on the USA for the past 5 years? Tactically it was stupid for Wikileaks to do that. The USA was the one government with the resources to take it down and they gave them the motivation to do it with Cablegate.
It hardly matters to me and to most people in the world if John Doe is cheating on his electric bill. Corruption is as relevant to people as its ability to affect them. US dirty policies affect the world as a whole significantly and so does US corruption, considerably more than corruption in any other institution. Wikileaks does publish embarrassing documents of other nations showing corruption, but given what I just explained it is no surprise that US is in the hot spot.
That isn't necessarily true. Corruption is not only relevant if it affects them. It's relevant when it can easily be stopped. A lot of corruption could have been stopped by Wikileaks but they chose to go after the US government. It was a stupid decision. The US government is too big to fail.
On the other hand, WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.'
Back in the day we used to have investigative journalists. We didn't get to know what color underwear Walter Cronkite war, or whether Dan Rather burped after a big meal -- somehow we trudged on.
I did not realize that when I went to WikiLeaks to get some INFORMATION I should know as part of a transparent Democracy (because otherwise, how am I an informed citizen?) -- that I was being "slavish". I'm surprised I'm also not part of a cult and heralding Assange as the next Jesus -- isn't that how these straw man arguments go?
I don't give a rats ass about Julian Assange -- he has no real power in this world to abuse. He is beside the point.
Al Gore can make a speech about global warming -- and the environment will change based on science in action -- not whether Al Gore has integrity, or we should worship him. He could be a crook -- it doesn't matter. He's been telling the truth AFAIK, but we don't "sink or swim" on sea level rise based on the messenger.
Screw everyone who thinks that we have to hold people accountable for bringing us information. Debate the damn information -- or shut the fuck up. Anyone who wants to conflate the purpose of WikiLeaks with some bedroom gazing of it's founder or maybe the Janitor can kiss my damn ass. That goes for any subject in the future; debate the science, debate the value, debate the information. You debate the "personality" and we know you are an a-hole.
The "begging of the question" here truly pisses me off.
Julian Assange had/has plenty of power. He knows and has information. Information that he has is powerful if it's the kind which can put lives at risk.
The point is that Julian Assange is ultimately just a man. All men get corrupted over time just like all men age over time.
I'm glad someone wrote up an article about this. I'm actually for the kind of transparency he's promoting; and I think his work has shown that governments cannot and should not be allowed to hide from the truth. He's a brave new pioneer into the kind of work the 'free press' should be doing - but do not because of their limitations (should all reporters know basic hacking techniques in the future - question for another time). WRT the article, referring to his org as a cult is a bit much (but I'm sure there's elements in there as there always are), but here's the real problem with his organization:
His organization has and gets very secret information. This information is often so powerful/secret/damning that could potentially bring down banks, companies, individuals, or maybe even countries or at least their regimes. There are a number of problems with a sole person with this much power.
How do we know if he's not 'cherry-picking' information and just releasing what he wants to cause the reaction he wants? Does he fact-check anything he releases at all? We know news organizations Fox/NPR/et al can do exactly this to sway public opinion. Just because he's releasing information doesn't mean he's releasing ALL the information that would paint a full picture. It doesn't tell us if he's at all modified or tampered with that information. Unless the person who's accused comes out with counter-proof (if there is even a way if the leaked info was purely made up anyway), there is no way to know without a LOT of fact checking of likely terribly secret stuff. But the damage would be done by then. At best it turns into a credibility war; and with no transparency on either side - who are we to believe?
With information so central and key to financial and government systems, what is to keep Assange and co from going rouge and extorting or holding companies, countries or people for blackmail? "Just leave me alone Obama or I'll dump all that stuff about those drone strike kills you ordered". "Ok Goldman, give me 5 million dollars/year and a Lear jet or I leak how you knew about the housing collapse and fed into it" He very well could have information right now that could upset major governments and/or financial institutions, bankrupt huge corporations, and plunge the world into chaos/worse recession. With as somewhat unstable as he seems at times - do you really trust one man bouncing from country to country - living in hotel rooms - to make decisions to 'do the right thing' at all times?
These are all the exact same problems that news organizations have. They must fact check, and release information in a way that promotes truth in our organizations without destroying the very things we need to survive in a modern world. He has none of these burdens.
Some information can never be leaked no matter if it's criminal or not. If it involves sources and methods it should not be leaked. It's not a matter of ethics or right and wrong because when you cannot see the big picture you don't know right or wrong. You don't know who every source is, it could be your best friend, your husband or wife, or you. You don't know what the methods are, they could be illegal but if released then the whole world would start using those methods and the situation would become x10 worse. It's not as simple as just thinking the truth will set everyone free.
And that one point happens to be a man named Julian Assange. All men are weak. All information systems set up like that ultimately fail. This is obvious to anyone who studies information security. The internet was designed so it did not have a single point of failure. There are principles behind the internet itself and Wikileaks did not follow even that. I cannot take the organization too seriously when it wasn't really designed all that well.
Think about it like this. A circle of information cannot be divided or stopped as easily as a chain or a point. A point you can stop by simply stopping that one man. So they stop Julian Assange and because he was Wikileaks they have stopped Wikileaks. Wikileaks is dead. If Wikileaks were designed in such a way so that there wasn;t just one Wikileaks, that couldn't happen.
The other problem is the mission of Wikileaks was originally to discover corruption. All corruption is local. Wikileaks is global but seemed to exclusively focus on the US government in the last few years. Why? Corruption is all over the world in all kinds of organizations, corporate, government, church, even in organizations similar to wikileaks. So why focus only on the USA for the past 5 years? Tactically it was stupid for Wikileaks to do that. The USA was the one government with the resources to take it down and they gave them the motivation to do it with Cablegate.
Wikileaks and all of the people working for it are OBVIOUSLY going to need to obfuscate details about themselves. Look at the absolutely living nightmare of a shitstorm that Assange has been dragged through. Look where he is now.
But no, hey, let's be transparent. How about all of the contacts at Wikileaks post their full contact information. SURELY nobody on earth has any axe to grind against them, and they will remain in perfect harmony and safety.
When you put one man at the head of something important like Wikileaks you get centralized corruption. Centralized corruption can only be solved through decentralization and anonymity. And do not take this as a promotion as Anonymous. They in their current form are content to being script kiddies and followers.
Anonymity means no recognized group. It means an Anonymous jury of peers selected by a transparent process. People can be selected from the community to serve on a sort of grand jury for these sorts of situations. The problem is we aren't doing that with Wikileaks. In fact, Julian Assange isn't even an American citizen but is in the position to decide the fate of US citizens, troops, and US intelligence assets? One man should not be in that position because no one man can be trusted to be in that position, and if he's a foreign man with no ties to the US government at all deciding the fate of those who live and die by the decisions of the US government well then you see the problem with it.
Julian Assange is a foreign national. He should not be in a position to decide which intelligence asset lives or dies due to redaction or not. He should not even have that sort of information leaked to him in the first place. He should not be deciding the fate of US troops either. If there is to be a process for combating corruption it should not be the Wikileaks model where one man from one country decides the fate of all men from all countries. Instead it should be local and at least a few people (men/women/minorities etc) from your community, should decide. It should be people who actually understand.
Julian Assange may mean well and have good intentions but he doesn't understand every culture on the earth, he doesn't understand every language or every situation, he doesn't even truly understand the US situation correctly. Bradley Manning and Adrian Lamo combined understand the US situation each from their own perspective. Ask yourself why Wikileaks put one man in charge of everything? Is that something that is done in a secure organization? When can you ever trust an organization with centralized authority? If you are an anti-authoritarian why would you trust an organization set up in such a way where Julian Assange is king of Wikileaks and does not have to accept any kind of democratic process or input?
I'm not saying he actually was like that because I don't know him. But the way his organization was organized it certainly put him in a position to be like that if he were ever corrupted. For that reason I never trusted him or Wikileaks after WIkileaks put his face as the logo and made it about him. When it became Wikileaks presented by Julian Assange, I knew something was wrong intuitively with the organization.
While I agree this is a classic "look over there!" kind of tactic by those whose dirty laundry is now on Wikileaks the whole "accountable to the people" is just bullshit. How many protest were there against the war in Iraq? How many marches? didn't change a thing did it? did occupy accomplish anything besides getting a bunch more names added to the watchlist?
The simple fact is for several decades the people have been ignored because those in power have a revolving door between DC and big business. if you "throw the bums out" the bums get cushy jobs at the companies they shilled for and the next guy has a big fat check waiting when he walks through the door. Why do you think Obama upheld and even expanded so many of Bush's policies with the left so against them? Because its kayfabe, just like pro wrestling. they handed him a check and told him STFU and read the cue card.
This is why all the "debates" end up being over something like gay rights or abortions, these are things the big corps don't give a shit about and so allowing the people argue over them doesn't hurt the bottom line. But if you think the people have any choice deeper than Coke VS Coke in a different shaped bottle I have a bridge to nowhere you may be interested in, politics is a billion dollar business and big corps pull the strings.
You are absolutely right. Politics are about absolute money, power, and family. If you're not from a dynastic family of wealth and power then why get involved in politics? If you're not a part of that and don't want to join that then politics are a dead end profession.
Because if it's Julian or Daniel or whomever it's corrupt. The only way it could work is by community elected committee. X amount of people are selected for the Anonymous committee. They decide what happens to the data and censor what needs to be censored. The problem is how do we select these people? They shouldn't select themselves and they shouldn't want the job. It would have to be just like jury selection.
Wikileak is dead. Openleaks is dead. The idea of the model for Wikileaks is obsolete. The idea for Openleaks as a model is obsolete but it was a better design than Wikileaks. Ultimately neither are workable. A workable idea would be to take the dumb pipe model of Openleaks and combine it with a decentralized Anonymous live Grand Jury type model. The problem is this would put a new layer of secrecy and could be a problem in itself but there is no transparent way to do this. Transparency is impossible. Centralization is dumb.
Certain information has to remain secret or lives are lost. Certain information has to remain secret or more harm than good. And certain information has to remain secret because there is no one to give it to at the time. Disclosure doesn't work too well when there is no one in the world responsible enough to disclose to.
And just giving it to the media is irresponsible. Giving it to the world itself is irresponsible too may be irresponsible if it leads to WW3. Julian Assange's Cablegate was irresponsible. It does not protect the community. This leak brings World War 3 even closer to our doorsteps because it makes governments even more paranoid of each other. So that was not a good leak. A good leak reveals government abuse of community. Cablegate did not reveal any such abuse. Also a good leak does not target one specific government but all governments and all authority at once. Cablegate only seemed to cause damage to the US government so what good was that?
So you hate the USA? But you just empowered the other governments instead?
There's going to be a shift from passwords in general. Not only are they often insecure, but there's no verification that the person typing in the password is the user who owns it.
No, we're going to switch to biological means. This will be more secure, but as a side effect, there will be more assaults in which the eye/finger/penis is removed and used to gain access to these bio-protected systems.
If someone has to remove your penis to get your password perhaps you should choose another profession.
My solution would be to allow for each user to select a self destruct sequence option where if the hashes do go missing and this does occur that their data will be destroyed in this case so that hackers have no chance of accessing it. Some people would rather destroy the data than let it get into the wrong hands.
First bad password: 1 second to retry. Second bad password: 2 seconds to retry. Third bad password: 4 seconds to retry. Fourth bad password: 8 seconds to retry. Fifth bad password: 16 seconds to retry.
You get the idea. It'll end brute-force and only mildly inconvenience clueless users with fat fingers.
This is actually a good idea which should be implemented.
ÂHumans have trouble remembering passwords with more than seven characters, and it is difficult to enter long, complex passwords into mobile devicesÂ
let's say you type your current 7-char password 2 times, is it harder to remember? I guess it will be even harder to remember to type it 3 times, if 14-chars are no longer safe enough in the future.
Some humans. Apparently I must have a genius level IQ because my Linux password is over 30 characters and I remember it fine. The only difficult part is actually having to type that monster to log in when the room is dark and the screen is asleep.
So if I want to wipe out your data I just attempt to log in to your account 10 times using a bogus password. Even if your data's backed up, the next time you go to log in might not be a great time to have to do a restore.
Also I would be tipped off that someone is trying to access my data if it's destroyed. Basically if you have precious data then back that up to the cloud and the rest of it you should care more about privacy of the data than the data itself.
... before I'll submit to an iris scan at a bank. Several local banks have tried using thumbprints on checks, and it is NOT well-accepted by their customers and others.
That is okay, our alien bankers are preparing to give us anal probes to determine our DNA and intestine microbial based authentication.
Slashdot Mirror
The risks change over time. The enemy is going to figure out that the US fights with drones and cyber warriors and begin targeting them.
Why not government guaranteed basic income?
Because getting money for free makes you lazy (I'm not exempt here, if I got free money I sure wouldn't be working).
If you change it, and say guaranteed job, something uncomfortable like digging ditches (with alternatives for handicapped people), then I would support you. We can have a job office where people can come each day and work. They will be paid by the amount of work they do, not by the hour. They can be paid a good amount, but it can't be comfortable work.
If you change to that I'll support you. I sure won't support giving people free money.
So all college students are lazy because they get financial aid? There is no evidence that free money makes people lazy because people don't work hard for money. Money will make more people show up and go through the motions but it wont make someone want to be the best or be competitive.
the problem is that you don't have a right to food, health care, or housing.
Exactly what do you mean by a "right to food, health care, or housing"? What does that mean? Do you mean that you have the right to have someone provide you with those? If so, who is forced to do the work necessary to provide you with them?
Let the robot slaves do the work. Feed the slaves electricity.
If you want to give out a medal for flying a drone, fine, I don't have a huge problem with it as long as you're great at it. What really irritates me and a lot of other service members is it's ranking in the 'order of precedence'. What I've read is it ranks above some combat medals, specifically the Bronze Star, which is really pissing off the 'boots on the ground' troops and I don't blame them for being mad.
But the nature of combat is constantly changing. Ground troops are still important but their role is going to become less important over time. In the future there will be robots used in certain roles where ground troops are used now. The drone operators and cyber warriors will eventually be the main role.
Combat is about survival and winning. It doesn't matter if you use snipers, nukes, or hackers.
That being said the concept of combat is going to change. Currently cyber soldiers aren't viewed as a combat role but that is going to drastically change in the near future when the enemy begins targeting them directly. Right now it seems like it's not a combat role but people felt that way about the Airforce at first too. The nature of war is going to change and combat will change but anyone who kills or risks being killed for the US Constitution should have our respect.
So what about the people who get income not in the form of wages?
They should raise the basic income but there is no basic income yet unless you count welfare and welfare is hard to get and they want to make people pay a fee to get it in North Dakota, see: http://www.topix.com/forum/health/womens-health/TEII96LUBC3DL8UJJ
Because the trend is to turn us into either unemployed, or independent contractors, or temporary workers. An independent contractor can work for lower than minimum wage so the minimum wage doesn't matter when not everyone is paid in wages. Why not minimum income? Why not government guaranteed basic income? Watch this video for more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sDBF_MbflY
Corruption is the problem everywhere, not just in government and not just in the US government. I'm actually more concerned about the corruption workplaces and churches, and while the government is a workplace it's not the only workplace.
Use a virtual machine.
If you load up a virtual machine then there are no unique cookies, fonts, or anything on it uniquely you.
The rest of your post is complete nonsense and doesn't even deserve an answer.
The other problem is the mission of Wikileaks was originally to discover corruption. All corruption is local. Wikileaks is global but seemed to exclusively focus on the US government in the last few years. Why? Corruption is all over the world in all kinds of organizations, corporate, government, church, even in organizations similar to wikileaks. So why focus only on the USA for the past 5 years? Tactically it was stupid for Wikileaks to do that. The USA was the one government with the resources to take it down and they gave them the motivation to do it with Cablegate.
It hardly matters to me and to most people in the world if John Doe is cheating on his electric bill. Corruption is as relevant to people as its ability to affect them. US dirty policies affect the world as a whole significantly and so does US corruption, considerably more than corruption in any other institution. Wikileaks does publish embarrassing documents of other nations showing corruption, but given what I just explained it is no surprise that US is in the hot spot.
That isn't necessarily true. Corruption is not only relevant if it affects them. It's relevant when it can easily be stopped. A lot of corruption could have been stopped by Wikileaks but they chose to go after the US government. It was a stupid decision. The US government is too big to fail.
That is not exactly true. There are ways from the powerline for example but I admit it's not something Mallery would do unless extremely motivated.
On the other hand, WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.'
Back in the day we used to have investigative journalists. We didn't get to know what color underwear Walter Cronkite war, or whether Dan Rather burped after a big meal -- somehow we trudged on.
I did not realize that when I went to WikiLeaks to get some INFORMATION I should know as part of a transparent Democracy (because otherwise, how am I an informed citizen?) -- that I was being "slavish". I'm surprised I'm also not part of a cult and heralding Assange as the next Jesus -- isn't that how these straw man arguments go?
I don't give a rats ass about Julian Assange -- he has no real power in this world to abuse. He is beside the point.
Al Gore can make a speech about global warming -- and the environment will change based on science in action -- not whether Al Gore has integrity, or we should worship him. He could be a crook -- it doesn't matter. He's been telling the truth AFAIK, but we don't "sink or swim" on sea level rise based on the messenger.
Screw everyone who thinks that we have to hold people accountable for bringing us information. Debate the damn information -- or shut the fuck up. Anyone who wants to conflate the purpose of WikiLeaks with some bedroom gazing of it's founder or maybe the Janitor can kiss my damn ass. That goes for any subject in the future; debate the science, debate the value, debate the information. You debate the "personality" and we know you are an a-hole.
The "begging of the question" here truly pisses me off.
Julian Assange had/has plenty of power. He knows and has information. Information that he has is powerful if it's the kind which can put lives at risk.
The point is that Julian Assange is ultimately just a man. All men get corrupted over time just like all men age over time.
I'm glad someone wrote up an article about this. I'm actually for the kind of transparency he's promoting; and I think his work has shown that governments cannot and should not be allowed to hide from the truth. He's a brave new pioneer into the kind of work the 'free press' should be doing - but do not because of their limitations (should all reporters know basic hacking techniques in the future - question for another time). WRT the article, referring to his org as a cult is a bit much (but I'm sure there's elements in there as there always are), but here's the real problem with his organization:
His organization has and gets very secret information. This information is often so powerful/secret/damning that could potentially bring down banks, companies, individuals, or maybe even countries or at least their regimes. There are a number of problems with a sole person with this much power.
How do we know if he's not 'cherry-picking' information and just releasing what he wants to cause the reaction he wants? Does he fact-check anything he releases at all? We know news organizations Fox/NPR/et al can do exactly this to sway public opinion. Just because he's releasing information doesn't mean he's releasing ALL the information that would paint a full picture. It doesn't tell us if he's at all modified or tampered with that information. Unless the person who's accused comes out with counter-proof (if there is even a way if the leaked info was purely made up anyway), there is no way to know without a LOT of fact checking of likely terribly secret stuff. But the damage would be done by then. At best it turns into a credibility war; and with no transparency on either side - who are we to believe?
With information so central and key to financial and government systems, what is to keep Assange and co from going rouge and extorting or holding companies, countries or people for blackmail? "Just leave me alone Obama or I'll dump all that stuff about those drone strike kills you ordered". "Ok Goldman, give me 5 million dollars/year and a Lear jet or I leak how you knew about the housing collapse and fed into it" He very well could have information right now that could upset major governments and/or financial institutions, bankrupt huge corporations, and plunge the world into chaos/worse recession. With as somewhat unstable as he seems at times - do you really trust one man bouncing from country to country - living in hotel rooms - to make decisions to 'do the right thing' at all times?
These are all the exact same problems that news organizations have. They must fact check, and release information in a way that promotes truth in our organizations without destroying the very things we need to survive in a modern world. He has none of these burdens.
Some information can never be leaked no matter if it's criminal or not. If it involves sources and methods it should not be leaked. It's not a matter of ethics or right and wrong because when you cannot see the big picture you don't know right or wrong. You don't know who every source is, it could be your best friend, your husband or wife, or you. You don't know what the methods are, they could be illegal but if released then the whole world would start using those methods and the situation would become x10 worse. It's not as simple as just thinking the truth will set everyone free.
And that one point happens to be a man named Julian Assange. All men are weak. All information systems set up like that ultimately fail. This is obvious to anyone who studies information security. The internet was designed so it did not have a single point of failure. There are principles behind the internet itself and Wikileaks did not follow even that. I cannot take the organization too seriously when it wasn't really designed all that well.
Think about it like this. A circle of information cannot be divided or stopped as easily as a chain or a point. A point you can stop by simply stopping that one man. So they stop Julian Assange and because he was Wikileaks they have stopped Wikileaks. Wikileaks is dead. If Wikileaks were designed in such a way so that there wasn;t just one Wikileaks, that couldn't happen.
The other problem is the mission of Wikileaks was originally to discover corruption. All corruption is local. Wikileaks is global but seemed to exclusively focus on the US government in the last few years. Why? Corruption is all over the world in all kinds of organizations, corporate, government, church, even in organizations similar to wikileaks. So why focus only on the USA for the past 5 years? Tactically it was stupid for Wikileaks to do that. The USA was the one government with the resources to take it down and they gave them the motivation to do it with Cablegate.
Wikileaks and all of the people working for it are OBVIOUSLY going to need to obfuscate details about themselves. Look at the absolutely living nightmare of a shitstorm that Assange has been dragged through. Look where he is now.
But no, hey, let's be transparent. How about all of the contacts at Wikileaks post their full contact information. SURELY nobody on earth has any axe to grind against them, and they will remain in perfect harmony and safety.
When you put one man at the head of something important like Wikileaks you get centralized corruption. Centralized corruption can only be solved through decentralization and anonymity. And do not take this as a promotion as Anonymous. They in their current form are content to being script kiddies and followers.
Anonymity means no recognized group. It means an Anonymous jury of peers selected by a transparent process. People can be selected from the community to serve on a sort of grand jury for these sorts of situations. The problem is we aren't doing that with Wikileaks. In fact, Julian Assange isn't even an American citizen but is in the position to decide the fate of US citizens, troops, and US intelligence assets? One man should not be in that position because no one man can be trusted to be in that position, and if he's a foreign man with no ties to the US government at all deciding the fate of those who live and die by the decisions of the US government well then you see the problem with it.
Julian Assange is a foreign national. He should not be in a position to decide which intelligence asset lives or dies due to redaction or not. He should not even have that sort of information leaked to him in the first place. He should not be deciding the fate of US troops either. If there is to be a process for combating corruption it should not be the Wikileaks model where one man from one country decides the fate of all men from all countries. Instead it should be local and at least a few people (men/women/minorities etc) from your community, should decide. It should be people who actually understand.
Julian Assange may mean well and have good intentions but he doesn't understand every culture on the earth, he doesn't understand every language or every situation, he doesn't even truly understand the US situation correctly. Bradley Manning and Adrian Lamo combined understand the US situation each from their own perspective. Ask yourself why Wikileaks put one man in charge of everything? Is that something that is done in a secure organization? When can you ever trust an organization with centralized authority? If you are an anti-authoritarian why would you trust an organization set up in such a way where Julian Assange is king of Wikileaks and does not have to accept any kind of democratic process or input?
I'm not saying he actually was like that because I don't know him. But the way his organization was organized it certainly put him in a position to be like that if he were ever corrupted. For that reason I never trusted him or Wikileaks after WIkileaks put his face as the logo and made it about him. When it became Wikileaks presented by Julian Assange, I knew something was wrong intuitively with the organization.
While I agree this is a classic "look over there!" kind of tactic by those whose dirty laundry is now on Wikileaks the whole "accountable to the people" is just bullshit. How many protest were there against the war in Iraq? How many marches? didn't change a thing did it? did occupy accomplish anything besides getting a bunch more names added to the watchlist?
The simple fact is for several decades the people have been ignored because those in power have a revolving door between DC and big business. if you "throw the bums out" the bums get cushy jobs at the companies they shilled for and the next guy has a big fat check waiting when he walks through the door. Why do you think Obama upheld and even expanded so many of Bush's policies with the left so against them? Because its kayfabe, just like pro wrestling. they handed him a check and told him STFU and read the cue card.
This is why all the "debates" end up being over something like gay rights or abortions, these are things the big corps don't give a shit about and so allowing the people argue over them doesn't hurt the bottom line. But if you think the people have any choice deeper than Coke VS Coke in a different shaped bottle I have a bridge to nowhere you may be interested in, politics is a billion dollar business and big corps pull the strings.
You are absolutely right. Politics are about absolute money, power, and family. If you're not from a dynastic family of wealth and power then why get involved in politics? If you're not a part of that and don't want to join that then politics are a dead end profession.
Because if it's Julian or Daniel or whomever it's corrupt. The only way it could work is by community elected committee. X amount of people are selected for the Anonymous committee. They decide what happens to the data and censor what needs to be censored. The problem is how do we select these people? They shouldn't select themselves and they shouldn't want the job. It would have to be just like jury selection.
Wikileak is dead. Openleaks is dead. The idea of the model for Wikileaks is obsolete. The idea for Openleaks as a model is obsolete but it was a better design than Wikileaks. Ultimately neither are workable. A workable idea would be to take the dumb pipe model of Openleaks and combine it with a decentralized Anonymous live Grand Jury type model. The problem is this would put a new layer of secrecy and could be a problem in itself but there is no transparent way to do this. Transparency is impossible. Centralization is dumb.
Certain information has to remain secret or lives are lost. Certain information has to remain secret or more harm than good. And certain information has to remain secret because there is no one to give it to at the time. Disclosure doesn't work too well when there is no one in the world responsible enough to disclose to.
And just giving it to the media is irresponsible. Giving it to the world itself is irresponsible too may be irresponsible if it leads to WW3. Julian Assange's Cablegate was irresponsible. It does not protect the community. This leak brings World War 3 even closer to our doorsteps because it makes governments even more paranoid of each other. So that was not a good leak. A good leak reveals government abuse of community. Cablegate did not reveal any such abuse. Also a good leak does not target one specific government but all governments and all authority at once. Cablegate only seemed to cause damage to the US government so what good was that?
So you hate the USA? But you just empowered the other governments instead?
There's going to be a shift from passwords in general. Not only are they often insecure, but there's no verification that the person typing in the password is the user who owns it.
No, we're going to switch to biological means. This will be more secure, but as a side effect, there will be more assaults in which the eye/finger/penis is removed and used to gain access to these bio-protected systems.
If someone has to remove your penis to get your password perhaps you should choose another profession.
My solution would be to allow for each user to select a self destruct sequence option where if the hashes do go missing and this does occur that their data will be destroyed in this case so that hackers have no chance of accessing it. Some people would rather destroy the data than let it get into the wrong hands.
I'd just double the time it takes for each try.
First bad password: 1 second to retry.
Second bad password: 2 seconds to retry.
Third bad password: 4 seconds to retry.
Fourth bad password: 8 seconds to retry.
Fifth bad password: 16 seconds to retry.
You get the idea. It'll end brute-force and only mildly inconvenience clueless users with fat fingers.
This is actually a good idea which should be implemented.
ÂHumans have trouble remembering passwords with more than seven characters, and it is difficult to enter long, complex passwords into mobile devicesÂ
let's say you type your current 7-char password 2 times, is it harder to remember? I guess it will be even harder to remember to type it 3 times, if 14-chars are no longer safe enough in the future.
Some humans. Apparently I must have a genius level IQ because my Linux password is over 30 characters and I remember it fine. The only difficult part is actually having to type that monster to log in when the room is dark and the screen is asleep.
So if I want to wipe out your data I just attempt to log in to your account 10 times using a bogus password. Even if your data's backed up, the next time you go to log in might not be a great time to have to do a restore.
Also I would be tipped off that someone is trying to access my data if it's destroyed. Basically if you have precious data then back that up to the cloud and the rest of it you should care more about privacy of the data than the data itself.
My data is backed up to the cloud. Try wiping that.
... before I'll submit to an iris scan at a bank. Several local banks have tried using thumbprints on checks, and it is NOT well-accepted by their customers and others.
That is okay, our alien bankers are preparing to give us anal probes to determine our DNA and intestine microbial based authentication.