The site can't be monitored directly. That's the whole point. I'm sure they will be watching, but not directly. Were I in their place, I'd be looking for sites that link to files uploaded to Mega. A few careful google queries, a custom crawler, even entering into a few sneaky agreements with ISPs to do DPI and see where people are going. The idea not being to catch all the pirates, but to catch all the highly-visible pirates and the communities they form around. So only private, invite-only forums can survive.
None of that will be useful when you consider the cost vs benefit. Sure if they invest a billion dollars a year in every country and treat it like the War on Drugs then they will initiate an arms race but what is the point?
If it's using public key cryptography then there is no way for it to be a honeypot. The prive encryption key determines the security of your files and the public key determines who can access your files. PKI.
If a job requires a skill that is easy to test, it should be obvious that you want to test it. Programming is such a skill. Sure there are tasks within programming that can't be tested in 45 minutes, but there are also tasks that can. I'd feel I knew more about a programmer's skills having seen a couple dozen lines of code she's written than for instance hearing her last employer's opinion, which may be biased by all sorts of interests, or reading the list of projects she'd worked on, where you don't know how she contributed. College grades in programming courses might provide the same kind of information, but courses may not be standardized and the candidate might have developed her skills since college.
Timed tests would only stress me out to the point where I would probably code poorly due to worrying about the clock. I suppose it depends on the difficulty of the project of course. If it's say a few hundred lines of code I could do that maybe an hour or so. If it's less than that then I could do it even quicker.
How many lines of code? How complicated are we talking about? What language is it in? If it's something like Python I could for sure write a web browser or some kind of bot in 100 lines of code in an hour. It will be sloppy, it will have bugs, it wont have a graphical user interface, but it would work.
If I'm judged on quality too then I'd fail. If I'm judged on bugs then I'd fail. In an hour you'd get whatever I could pull together into working code.
This is the system of our wet dreams. For years we have talked about cloud gaming devices. And in theory internet speeds are fast enough to make this work.
This is actually very interesting. How will Sony, Microsoft and the consoles compete with this? Could this thing be used to bring back arcade gaming? I could see arcades coming back with something like this here.
Just tell them you have a degree and don't highlight your PHD or education. They will find out about it if they absolutely care but if they don't they wont.
So you would have put intelligence sources at risk?
So you think repeating a Big Lie eventually makes it true? The Pentagon has never been able to name a single case where the cables resulted in any risk or any harm to any intelligence "source".
You're saying you could have read 200,000 Cables over the course of a few days?
As if Ellisburg read all 120,000 pages of the Pentagon Papers.
Since you wouldn't know and wouldn't be able to determine how many lives are put at risk, what is the responsible thing to do here?
Where's your Concern over all the lives ended by the War of Terror launched by Bush and continued by Obama?
How would the Pentagon go about naming a single case where the cables resulted in harm to an intelligence source without damaging itself as an institution and potentially putting future intelligence sources in danger? If the enemy had success they wouldn't announce it and if the enemy failed they wouldn't announce it.
You can pretend no such thing happened to support your world view or you can simply admit that the world is more nuanced. Regardless of if what Manning did was right, he certainly did reveal all sorts of very bad crimes (murder, torture, etc).
"In 2007 the U.S. embassy in Baghdad obtained a copy of the Iraqi government's final investigation report on the massacre of 17 civilians on September 16th, 2007 in Nisour Square. The report concluded that the incident was an unprovoked attack on unarmed civilians, asked for $8 million in compensation for each death and $4 million for each injury, and demanded that the private security firm Blackwater be replaced within six months. Blackwater continued to operate in Iraq for two years afterwards, and the U.S. Embassy compensated victims with $10,000 for each death and $5,000 for each injury. Five years later, the offending Blackwater mercenaries have escaped from accountability to Iraq, and attempts to bring them to justice in the U.S. have resulted in a long chain of dismissed cases and one undisclosed settlement."
This is something which can be handled in court. Do you really think this amounts to war crimes? If you think it does, how exactly does the media exposure change anything?
This submission text is tainted by the poster's personal opinions - opinions which are, to say the very least, not unanimously shared. If you read the article it is striking how Lamo seems completely bereft of any sympathy for Manning, how he might have possibly fooled him into confessing by promising to treat it in confidence - and how he likes to hide behind complex (made up?) words and phrases instead of answering the interviewer's questions directly. One for the psychologists...
Did Manning seem concerned about what could happen to intelligence sources or sensitive diplomatic relationships?
You can't directly tie the leaks to any particular case of harm for the same reason that you can't tie cigarette smoking to any particular lung cancer death of a smoker. You can, however, determine that the chances are very high that smoking has killed people--you just can't name any particular individual.
It's the same situation with the leaks. The Taliban has a long history of seeking out and killing people that they suspect are informants. When some random informant is killed, we have no idea how the Taliban got information on that informant. It's possible the Taliban decided to go completely against all of their past behavior, and decide to not target any of the leaked informants unless they found independent corroborating evidence--and that is about as likely as every lung cancer death of a smoker being due to causes unrelated to their smoking.
And worse we probably can't expect the government to admit that the leak did result in harm to intelligence sources. It would make the government look bad.
He either had no concern for the well-being of Manning and is just saying so or he is utter and complete fool for thinking that ratting him would result in anything other than utter persecution and kafkaesquely hellish existence.
Either he is an informer and enemy of free men pleading for forgiveness or a fool so bad he's got to suffer at least some repercussions.
I've no mercy to spare him.
So you would have put intelligence sources at risk? You're saying you could have read 200,000 Cables over the course of a few days? a few weeks? to see no intelligence sources are put at risk? Yeah right...
Since you wouldn't know and wouldn't be able to determine how many lives are put at risk, what is the responsible thing to do here?
Adrian Lamo spoke at a HOPE conference Informants Panel some years ago about this very subject... ugh anyway 1. he's a rat, snitch whatever and he did because it doesn't take a genius to realize that if someone tells you they just stole a truck load of top secret diplomat cables and is going to release them, the government is going to send people to jail and you have to make a decision if you want to be one of those people. 2. all the flimsy excuses he's given so far sound to me like something a FBI would have to said to him to make him feel better about ratting Manley out, whereas Lamo would have looked less like a creep if he just admitted to ratting Manley out because he didn't want to go to jail.
He's not a rat or snitch. He knew what side he was on all along and that side was with whatever side protects the most lives. Bradley Manning was potentially putting many lives at risk while the US government in this instance was only putting Bradley Manning's life at risk. Which life should be risked if you had to make the choice?
I'm going by what he claims he was thinking. He claims he did what he did to protect the lives of sources. That is as far away from being a snitch as possible. A snitch is someone who would leak to the enemy.
Or, colloquially, what's good for the goose is good or the gander.
Colloquially: you're a dumbfucker. On what planet is leaking evidence of mass criminality, corruption and war crimes equivalent to leaking the identity of a whistleblower? Until you have a video showing Manning gunning down unarmed civilians - and then gunning down people trying to rescue the dying civilians - you can cram that false equivalency right up your dumb ass.
There are no war crimes and mass criminality in Cablegate. That is wishful thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like you're reading from a script buddy. How much stock do you own in Disney?
But encrypting by them makes it secure for THEM.
The site can't be monitored directly. That's the whole point. I'm sure they will be watching, but not directly. Were I in their place, I'd be looking for sites that link to files uploaded to Mega. A few careful google queries, a custom crawler, even entering into a few sneaky agreements with ISPs to do DPI and see where people are going. The idea not being to catch all the pirates, but to catch all the highly-visible pirates and the communities they form around. So only private, invite-only forums can survive.
None of that will be useful when you consider the cost vs benefit. Sure if they invest a billion dollars a year in every country and treat it like the War on Drugs then they will initiate an arms race but what is the point?
If it's using public key cryptography then there is no way for it to be a honeypot. The prive encryption key determines the security of your files and the public key determines who can access your files. PKI.
And we are doing nothing to stop it.
If it's less than that of a human hair, they will need more processing power.
It just has to be regulated. That is unless they want tontines and ghoulpools.
If a job requires a skill that is easy to test, it should be obvious that you want to test it. Programming is such a skill. Sure there are tasks within programming that can't be tested in 45 minutes, but there are also tasks that can. I'd feel I knew more about a programmer's skills having seen a couple dozen lines of code she's written than for instance hearing her last employer's opinion, which may be biased by all sorts of interests, or reading the list of projects she'd worked on, where you don't know how she contributed. College grades in programming courses might provide the same kind of information, but courses may not be standardized and the candidate might have developed her skills since college.
Wow, showing is better than telling.
Timed tests would only stress me out to the point where I would probably code poorly due to worrying about the clock. I suppose it depends on the difficulty of the project of course. If it's say a few hundred lines of code I could do that maybe an hour or so. If it's less than that then I could do it even quicker.
How many lines of code? How complicated are we talking about? What language is it in? If it's something like Python I could for sure write a web browser or some kind of bot in 100 lines of code in an hour. It will be sloppy, it will have bugs, it wont have a graphical user interface, but it would work.
If I'm judged on quality too then I'd fail. If I'm judged on bugs then I'd fail. In an hour you'd get whatever I could pull together into working code.
This would explain why they need to get all the precious metal.
If you are sick, don't go out! If you do, you are part of the problem.
By the time you're sick (aka showing symptoms), you've already been infectious for at least a day.
The real solution is to get vaccinated and hope that the pharmaceutical companies guessed correctly about this year's strain.
But those vaccines aren't healthy. How many vaccines can you take before the vaccines present side effects?
Because it's always good to share the love with the person who threatens your job if you get sick.
This is the system of our wet dreams. For years we have talked about cloud gaming devices. And in theory internet speeds are fast enough to make this work.
This is actually very interesting. How will Sony, Microsoft and the consoles compete with this? Could this thing be used to bring back arcade gaming? I could see arcades coming back with something like this here.
Just tell them you have a degree and don't highlight your PHD or education. They will find out about it if they absolutely care but if they don't they wont.
Where's your Concern over all the lives ended by the War of Terror launched by Bush and continued by Obama?
The intelligence sources ARE the lives most at risk currently. They are the civilians who are under the threat of death and torture if discovered.
So you think repeating a Big Lie eventually makes it true? The Pentagon has never been able to name a single case where the cables resulted in any risk or any harm to any intelligence "source".
As if Ellisburg read all 120,000 pages of the Pentagon Papers.
Where's your Concern over all the lives ended by the War of Terror launched by Bush and continued by Obama?
How would the Pentagon go about naming a single case where the cables resulted in harm to an intelligence source without damaging itself as an institution and potentially putting future intelligence sources in danger? If the enemy had success they wouldn't announce it and if the enemy failed they wouldn't announce it.
This is something which can be handled in court.
The point was that it wasn't handled in court.
If you think it does, how exactly does the media exposure change anything?
Are you saying that just because nothing happened as a result, it should never have been exposed?
I'm a consequentialist. If nothing happened as a result of the exposure to the media then it shows exposure doesn't have the intended consequences.
You can pretend no such thing happened to support your world view or you can simply admit that the world is more nuanced. Regardless of if what Manning did was right, he certainly did reveal all sorts of very bad crimes (murder, torture, etc).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julian-assange/wikileaks-bradley-manning-testifies-cablegate_b_2215387.html
From what I'm reading there was a settlement.
"In 2007 the U.S. embassy in Baghdad obtained a copy of the Iraqi government's final investigation report on the massacre of 17 civilians on September 16th, 2007 in Nisour Square. The report concluded that the incident was an unprovoked attack on unarmed civilians, asked for $8 million in compensation for each death and $4 million for each injury, and demanded that the private security firm Blackwater be replaced within six months. Blackwater continued to operate in Iraq for two years afterwards, and the U.S. Embassy compensated victims with $10,000 for each death and $5,000 for each injury. Five years later, the offending Blackwater mercenaries have escaped from accountability to Iraq, and attempts to bring them to justice in the U.S. have resulted in a long chain of dismissed cases and one undisclosed settlement."
This is something which can be handled in court. Do you really think this amounts to war crimes? If you think it does, how exactly does the media exposure change anything?
This submission text is tainted by the poster's personal opinions - opinions which are, to say the very least, not unanimously shared. If you read the article it is striking how Lamo seems completely bereft of any sympathy for Manning, how he might have possibly fooled him into confessing by promising to treat it in confidence - and how he likes to hide behind complex (made up?) words and phrases instead of answering the interviewer's questions directly. One for the psychologists...
Did Manning seem concerned about what could happen to intelligence sources or sensitive diplomatic relationships?
You can't directly tie the leaks to any particular case of harm for the same reason that you can't tie cigarette smoking to any particular lung cancer death of a smoker. You can, however, determine that the chances are very high that smoking has killed people--you just can't name any particular individual.
It's the same situation with the leaks. The Taliban has a long history of seeking out and killing people that they suspect are informants. When some random informant is killed, we have no idea how the Taliban got information on that informant. It's possible the Taliban decided to go completely against all of their past behavior, and decide to not target any of the leaked informants unless they found independent corroborating evidence--and that is about as likely as every lung cancer death of a smoker being due to causes unrelated to their smoking.
And worse we probably can't expect the government to admit that the leak did result in harm to intelligence sources. It would make the government look bad.
He either had no concern for the well-being of Manning and is just saying so or he is utter and complete fool for thinking that ratting him would result in anything other than utter persecution and kafkaesquely hellish existence.
Either he is an informer and enemy of free men pleading for forgiveness or a fool so bad he's got to suffer at least some repercussions.
I've no mercy to spare him.
So you would have put intelligence sources at risk? You're saying you could have read 200,000 Cables over the course of a few days? a few weeks? to see no intelligence sources are put at risk? Yeah right...
Since you wouldn't know and wouldn't be able to determine how many lives are put at risk, what is the responsible thing to do here?
Adrian Lamo spoke at a HOPE conference Informants Panel some years ago about this very subject... ugh anyway
1. he's a rat, snitch whatever and he did because it doesn't take a genius to realize that if someone tells you they just stole a truck load of top secret diplomat cables and is going to release them, the government is going to send people to jail and you have to make a decision if you want to be one of those people.
2. all the flimsy excuses he's given so far sound to me like something a FBI would have to said to him to make him feel better about ratting Manley out, whereas Lamo would have looked less like a creep if he just admitted to ratting Manley out because he didn't want to go to jail.
He's not a rat or snitch. He knew what side he was on all along and that side was with whatever side protects the most lives. Bradley Manning was potentially putting many lives at risk while the US government in this instance was only putting Bradley Manning's life at risk. Which life should be risked if you had to make the choice?
I'm going by what he claims he was thinking. He claims he did what he did to protect the lives of sources. That is as far away from being a snitch as possible. A snitch is someone who would leak to the enemy.
Colloquially: you're a dumbfucker. On what planet is leaking evidence of mass criminality, corruption and war crimes equivalent to leaking the identity of a whistleblower? Until you have a video showing Manning gunning down unarmed civilians - and then gunning down people trying to rescue the dying civilians - you can cram that false equivalency right up your dumb ass.
There are no war crimes and mass criminality in Cablegate. That is wishful thinking.
Cablegate wasn't about any crimes. That was entirely political and that is the worst leak.