Fight however can mean a lot of things but first of all it means strategy. Sun Tzu said that the epitome of excellence in warfare is to win the war without fighting a single battle. Barring that be smart. Forget what you learned from movies. Remember what you learned from playing Go. At the signing of the Vietnam Peace Treaty in Paris, essentially a surrender, an American general confronted a Vietnamese General and said "You never defeated us in battle!" The Vietnamese General replied 'That's irrelevant now isn't it?"
While we all have a right to be free the only way to maintain that freedom is to have a world with no individual secrecy. Governments should know all our individual secrets and keep our collective secrets confidential.
The problem with governments is they leak secrets. They leak secrets because of Wikileaks founders like Julian Assange.
... have come forward and discussed dragnet unconstitutional surveillance that they were personally involved with. Remember Tice?
But everyone was worried about the latest Linux build, who is suing who, or Kim Kardashian's ass...
The NSA wants to monitor the internet to secure the USA and the world. It has to be done as the threat of terrorism and the amount of wars combined with the shitty economy and excessive radicalization of the USA and extremism around the globe, it's not an option to allow individuals to keep secrets from the government. The question is how can we give the government all our secrets without fear of being arrested or having the information abused or leaked?
The lack of the internet actually would make it harder to monitor the rebels communication. With the internet they'd know who is using Tor and who is communicating in encrypted form. Without the internet it will be much harder now because the communication methods will go much deeper underground and will be just as efficient as before but harder or impossible to trace.
The internet being cut off actually keeps the media from foreign countries from being able to monitor the situation but it doesn't greatly effect the situation because I am sure the rebels and syrian government both would be smart enough to have redundant forms of communication.
The government has the right to secure the internet. The intelligence community has the right to monitor the internet. There should be no secrets kept hidden from the US military on the internet because that would empower terrorists to plan their attacks on the enemy against US troops.
Stock retort but good: so you would have no objection then to the government placing surveillance cameras in your bedroom and bathroom? After all, didn't you say that the secrets of you and your family should not be hidden from the government? Private emails to a loved one, to name one example, are every bit as personal as toilet and sexual habits as far as I am concerned.
I would have no problem with it as long as the information is kept secret, it can never be used in court, and few people ever get to see it.
Looks like the generals want to solve the hacker threat in the traditional ways, trying to get some soldiers learn to hack. God forbid they trust civilian whitehats.
Trust shouldn't be in the equation when you're talking about cyberwar and hacking. It's more who has the skills and who is competent? The human being cannot be trusted in any information security equation or scenario as the human being is always the weak link. That is one of the first things you should learn.
The government has the right to secure the internet. The intelligence community has the right to monitor the internet. There should be no secrets kept hidden from the US military on the internet because that would empower terrorists to plan their attacks on the enemy against US troops.
Nuclear attacks aren't actually very useful in war. They destroy everything, not just the enemy. The best weapons in war destroy infrastructure while not taking out much else. An EMP type of bomb would be more damaging than a nuke even though a nuke would take more lives because EMP would destroy electronic equipment and infrastructure but not to the point that the enemy couldn't take the territory and use it.
WMDs today aren't really nukes. There are genetic weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, psytronic weapons, cybernetic weapons, laser weapons, all which are more dangerous than nuke and all paradigm shifting.
Nukes were state of the art in the 1940s-50s. It's 2012 and now the weapons are like nukes only invisible or so secret people don't know what they are to recognize whether or not it's being used. Russia has a zombie-gun weapon now for which there are no defenses against. Let's also not rule out lasers and other space weapons which could defeat a lot of these so called missile defense systems with ease. We have to worry about clone armies, cybernetic warfare, and other exotic weapons. Fortunately Iran doesn't have these weapons yet but I do think they have a satellite in space and probably are smart enough to figure out how to put weapons into space or just a guidance system from space. Missile defense systems wont work in an actual war, it will take more but that is my opinion and I don't know what different governments have I only know it wont work against China, Russia or Iran.
they call it disruptive technology for a reason. like the printing press, or the gun, or the atom bomb, it dramatically changes the status quo
it's simple: if you don't want it to live forever, don't put it on the internet. if you put it on the internet, it lives for ever
that's about the truth of it
but i suppose many people out there are like music company executives trying to impose legal constructs from the cassette tape age on the internet: unwelcome to accept ugly reality on the subject
well i'm sorry, you need to accept this as reality, no matter your feelings
one other point: privacy is NOT dead
all you have to do is stop offering parts of your life to the internet
the insane part is feeding private parts of your life to the internet, and then whining about a lack of privacy
Privacy is still dead. Anyone in your life can offer your life to the internet.
It's always a situation where we are using technological means to adapt to our human flaws or flaws in our own inability to accept embarrassing information as a society. Instead another way of looking at it is if everyone looks stupid, and embarrassing, eventually that becomes the new normal and we evolve and adapt.
The rules have to change as to what a "good person" is to include far more people. "Good people" should be allowed to look bad without being ruined.
If we are to ban such a thing, I think we must ensure appropriate even-handed enforcement of this ban, as such I propose we enlist a force strong enough to subdue any killer robot army should someone break said ban, therefore I suggest we build an army of large mechanized automatons heavily laden with weaponry to subdue any would-be killer robot army, or anyone who might be suspected of attempting to build such an army for that matter.
It's simple. We ban killer robots then build them in secret and use those robots to enforce human rights violations.
Abstracting away the reality that you are killing people, by making a machine do the actual deed after deployment removes the innate guilt of killing those people.
It makesit fantastically easier to justify and ignore wholesale slaughter.
A glitch on the program makes the drone think that anyone carrying a cylinder 2ft long and 1 inch diameter a combatant? (Looks like a gun barrel!) Well, all those poor fuckers carrying brooms and sweeping their patios had it coming! Nevermind those uppity pool boys with dipnets! Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right?!
When you can simply push a button and walk away without having to witness the attrocities you cause, you abstract away a fair bit of your conscience.
The military probably thinks that's a GREAT thing! Kids with guns won't cause mental trainwrecks to drones when they get mowed down, and the operator doesn't have to see it!
The reality is that deploying terminators is the same as turning a blind eye to consequences, and the innately terrible thing that war is, and why it should always be avoided whenever and however possible.
The innate guilt of dropping an atomic bomb didn't require a robot but you can train a human to follow orders and not feel guilty. I'm not claiming I know what the bomb dropper feels but they completed the mission anyway so what difference does it make?
No, but the fact that he kept secrets from the agency that could have been used to blackmail him means he's a security risk and therefore not of suitable character to work in the CIA. When you work for the CIA or any other government agency that keeps the nation's secrets, you can't keep such secrets from the agency.
How long has it been and people are still posting BS about the hack? The passwords were hashed, the CC info wasn't compromised and the server was up to date at the time of the hack (there's a google cache somewhere proving the version numbers). The personal details weren't encrypted but that's the same with most sites (besides which, if your server is compromised, so is the decryption key)
The passwords were hashed but not salted. That makes all the difference!
They didn't take information security seriously. They allowed our data to be compromised when they had plenty of money and expertise and could have hired anyone they needed to do the most basic level of security they missed.
Sony was in the cockpit and the plane was taking a nosedive straight to the ground. I'm glad the plane wasn't headed into any building or anything, and maybe now there is a chance to actually steer the plane back in the proper direction and avoid a much bigger disaster.
I haven't liked Sony for years but with this move I might give Sony a second chance.
Whatever harm came from cablegate was infinitesimal and eclipsed greatly when compared to the harm of Dick Cheney and his cronies' outing of Valerie Plame, an act which was done entirely for political and revenge related reasons. Any undercover operative or source she ever met with outside of the country very well may have been compromised due to that leak, causing their identities to be toxic to further operation, and due to the confidential nature of CIA business, we'll never know the true extent of the damage. As a conservative estimate, a few hundred thousand hours of man-time in training and undercover work may gone down the toilet. Nobody was ever convicted for the leak itself, and the pawn that is Scooter Libby was sacrificed at the altar in their place, except even his time was commuted by the president.
Funny how things work.
The point is if any harm came from Cablegate to civilians then Cablegate should never have happened.
The inquiry set up specifically to discover if that assertion was true couldn't, and they had access to a lot more information than you.
How would we even know what happened? They aren't going to leak that information out to civilians. We don't know how much havoc it caused. The point is that when Manning made the lean Manning didn't care about the result of his own actions. He couldn't have checked all those files just like you or I couldn't but from what I saw there were details in there which if properly and thoroughly investigated might have led back to real people. Some of the details were so specific that there could only be one person to fit the details.
That sort of activities taken by government which put civilian lives at risk should be revealed to civilians if civilians have the power to put an end to it
Dude, the war became unpopular and we voted for a guy that would get us out. We specifically didn't vote for the guy that thought we should stick around for a hundred years.
the first problem being if you do leak as a whistleblower to protect civilians you gotta leak in a way which doesn't help any rival government.
Right, which is why he got someone to filter it all. Wikileaks took FOREVER shifting through that massive dump to keep important information from getting out. Spies names, and such. But anything that shows our government doing anything negative could be considered to "help any rival government".
The other problem is even if you leak those things it doesn't mean there is anything that can be accomplished by leaking to the public rather than to law enforcement
Well we certainly don't trust our government and megacorps to be benevolent as they say they are. This sort of thing is obvious to the people who have been claiming infractions for years, but it fell on deaf ears because there wasn't much proof. Oh look.
This sort of thing incrementally sways the political disposition of the masses. And it's had an effect.
Also, we got the fuck out of Iraq. (And should probably do the same for Afghanistan)
If the law enforcement is corrupt then it should not be leaked. If law enforcement isn't corrupt then it should be leaked to law enforcement. The civilians typically are the most corrupt in any scenario and are the least responsible with regard to dealing with leaked information. Also certain information should not be leaked regardless of the scenario because it's genocide and torture to release it. Releasing the identities of intelligence sources promotes genocide and torture, the very human rights abuses that we all claim to be against.
False. Everyone has human rights at all times. Anyone violating those rights deserves to be punished. Anyone.
Moral rights aren't the same as legal rights. Moral rights do not actually exist except in the minds of those who share the morality. Legal rights exist regardless of morality because they are actually enforced by military or police. Human rights don't exist because there is no UN army to enforce them into existence.
Did Bradley Manning steal a whole bunch of military and government secrets and leak them? Yes: he's guilty.
Did Julian Assange then publish these secrets, knowing that he has zero way of predicting the consequences? Yes: he's guilty.
I know these are unpopular views.
However, for a society to work, we need to have rules. Just like it's bad logic to say, "I'm bigger than you, therefore I'm going to take your stuff," it's bad logic to say, "I know how to steal and publish these secrets, so I will."
I don't see any of Julian Assange's defenders stepping up to dox themselves on the internet, and reveal some of the stuff they've had on their hard drives over the years.
Hmm... what's in this folder labeled 'Windows CABs'? Looks like a bunch of pictures. Click. Wait a second... is that a goat?
Justifying this leak because we think all governments are bad is a foolish way of thinking. We don't know what government does and a lot of it we'd rather not know. Just get good people into office, make sure there are others in the system who can observe what they do, and we'll get the best results.
Trying to monitor our whole government by making it 'transparent' is going to result in a government that will be totally adversarial to us and will hide a lot of secrets. Those will be in places without any oversight. Think about this one.
I don't think Wikileaks solved a single problem, or advanced us at all. Most likely, it got some people killed for doing what they believed was right. It's time for Assange and Manning to face the consequences of their actions.
It's not illegal to receive or publish classified documents. Nor should it ever be illegal. If you're not responsible for keeping something secret you shouldn't be punished for doing your job as a journalist.
Slashdot Mirror
How can there be secret wars if there is no secrecy?
Fight however can mean a lot of things but first of all it means strategy. Sun Tzu said that the epitome of excellence in warfare is to win the war without fighting a single battle. Barring that be smart. Forget what you learned from movies. Remember what you learned from playing Go. At the signing of the Vietnam Peace Treaty in Paris, essentially a surrender, an American general confronted a Vietnamese General and said "You never defeated us in battle!" The Vietnamese General replied 'That's irrelevant now isn't it?"
While we all have a right to be free the only way to maintain that freedom is to have a world with no individual secrecy. Governments should know all our individual secrets and keep our collective secrets confidential.
The problem with governments is they leak secrets. They leak secrets because of Wikileaks founders like Julian Assange.
... have come forward and discussed dragnet unconstitutional surveillance that they were personally involved with. Remember Tice?
But everyone was worried about the latest Linux build, who is suing who, or Kim Kardashian's ass...
The NSA wants to monitor the internet to secure the USA and the world. It has to be done as the threat of terrorism and the amount of wars combined with the shitty economy and excessive radicalization of the USA and extremism around the globe, it's not an option to allow individuals to keep secrets from the government. The question is how can we give the government all our secrets without fear of being arrested or having the information abused or leaked?
Because only terrorists try to hide from the government. That is how the government thinks.
The lack of the internet actually would make it harder to monitor the rebels communication. With the internet they'd know who is using Tor and who is communicating in encrypted form. Without the internet it will be much harder now because the communication methods will go much deeper underground and will be just as efficient as before but harder or impossible to trace.
The internet being cut off actually keeps the media from foreign countries from being able to monitor the situation but it doesn't greatly effect the situation because I am sure the rebels and syrian government both would be smart enough to have redundant forms of communication.
The government has the right to secure the internet. The intelligence community has the right to monitor the internet.
There should be no secrets kept hidden from the US military on the internet because that would empower terrorists to plan their attacks on the enemy against US troops.
Stock retort but good: so you would have no objection then to the government placing surveillance cameras in your bedroom and bathroom? After all, didn't you say that the secrets of you and your family should not be hidden from the government? Private emails to a loved one, to name one example, are every bit as personal as toilet and sexual habits as far as I am concerned.
I would have no problem with it as long as the information is kept secret, it can never be used in court, and few people ever get to see it.
Looks like the generals want to solve the hacker threat in the traditional ways, trying to get some soldiers learn to hack. God forbid they trust civilian whitehats.
Trust shouldn't be in the equation when you're talking about cyberwar and hacking. It's more who has the skills and who is competent? The human being cannot be trusted in any information security equation or scenario as the human being is always the weak link. That is one of the first things you should learn.
The government has the right to secure the internet. The intelligence community has the right to monitor the internet.
There should be no secrets kept hidden from the US military on the internet because that would empower terrorists to plan their attacks on the enemy against US troops.
Nuclear attacks aren't actually very useful in war. They destroy everything, not just the enemy. The best weapons in war destroy infrastructure while not taking out much else. An EMP type of bomb would be more damaging than a nuke even though a nuke would take more lives because EMP would destroy electronic equipment and infrastructure but not to the point that the enemy couldn't take the territory and use it.
WMDs today aren't really nukes. There are genetic weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, psytronic weapons, cybernetic weapons, laser weapons, all which are more dangerous than nuke and all paradigm shifting.
Nukes were state of the art in the 1940s-50s. It's 2012 and now the weapons are like nukes only invisible or so secret people don't know what they are to recognize whether or not it's being used. Russia has a zombie-gun weapon now for which there are no defenses against. Let's also not rule out lasers and other space weapons which could defeat a lot of these so called missile defense systems with ease. We have to worry about clone armies, cybernetic warfare, and other exotic weapons. Fortunately Iran doesn't have these weapons yet but I do think they have a satellite in space and probably are smart enough to figure out how to put weapons into space or just a guidance system from space. Missile defense systems wont work in an actual war, it will take more but that is my opinion and I don't know what different governments have I only know it wont work against China, Russia or Iran.
not any government policy or commercial entity
they call it disruptive technology for a reason. like the printing press, or the gun, or the atom bomb, it dramatically changes the status quo
it's simple: if you don't want it to live forever, don't put it on the internet. if you put it on the internet, it lives for ever
that's about the truth of it
but i suppose many people out there are like music company executives trying to impose legal constructs from the cassette tape age on the internet: unwelcome to accept ugly reality on the subject
well i'm sorry, you need to accept this as reality, no matter your feelings
one other point: privacy is NOT dead
all you have to do is stop offering parts of your life to the internet
the insane part is feeding private parts of your life to the internet, and then whining about a lack of privacy
Privacy is still dead. Anyone in your life can offer your life to the internet.
It's always a situation where we are using technological means to adapt to our human flaws or flaws in our own inability to accept embarrassing information as a society. Instead another way of looking at it is if everyone looks stupid, and embarrassing, eventually that becomes the new normal and we evolve and adapt.
The rules have to change as to what a "good person" is to include far more people. "Good people" should be allowed to look bad without being ruined.
If we are to ban such a thing, I think we must ensure appropriate even-handed enforcement of this ban, as such I propose we enlist a force strong enough to subdue any killer robot army should someone break said ban, therefore I suggest we build an army of large mechanized automatons heavily laden with weaponry to subdue any would-be killer robot army, or anyone who might be suspected of attempting to build such an army for that matter.
It's simple. We ban killer robots then build them in secret and use those robots to enforce human rights violations.
Killer Bots dont kill people, people kills people. Ban the people responsible for those killer bots, and, uh... oh, wait, they just got reelected.
Because humans wont be smart enough or strong enough to enforce the ban.
While cliche, take a look at "wargames".
Abstracting away the reality that you are killing people, by making a machine do the actual deed after deployment removes the innate guilt of killing those people.
It makesit fantastically easier to justify and ignore wholesale slaughter.
A glitch on the program makes the drone think that anyone carrying a cylinder 2ft long and 1 inch diameter a combatant? (Looks like a gun barrel!) Well, all those poor fuckers carrying brooms and sweeping their patios had it coming! Nevermind those uppity pool boys with dipnets! Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right?!
When you can simply push a button and walk away without having to witness the attrocities you cause, you abstract away a fair bit of your conscience.
The military probably thinks that's a GREAT thing! Kids with guns won't cause mental trainwrecks to drones when they get mowed down, and the operator doesn't have to see it!
The reality is that deploying terminators is the same as turning a blind eye to consequences, and the innately terrible thing that war is, and why it should always be avoided whenever and however possible.
The innate guilt of dropping an atomic bomb didn't require a robot but you can train a human to follow orders and not feel guilty. I'm not claiming I know what the bomb dropper feels but they completed the mission anyway so what difference does it make?
No, but the fact that he kept secrets from the agency that could have been used to blackmail him means he's a security risk and therefore not of suitable character to work in the CIA. When you work for the CIA or any other government agency that keeps the nation's secrets, you can't keep such secrets from the agency.
Why would he even try?
CIA has its own ethics. Security of the agency's information is their top priority.
As it should be.
How long has it been and people are still posting BS about the hack? The passwords were hashed, the CC info wasn't compromised and the server was up to date at the time of the hack (there's a google cache somewhere proving the version numbers). The personal details weren't encrypted but that's the same with most sites (besides which, if your server is compromised, so is the decryption key)
The passwords were hashed but not salted. That makes all the difference!
They didn't take information security seriously. They allowed our data to be compromised when they had plenty of money and expertise and could have hired anyone they needed to do the most basic level of security they missed.
Sony was in the cockpit and the plane was taking a nosedive straight to the ground. I'm glad the plane wasn't headed into any building or anything, and maybe now there is a chance to actually steer the plane back in the proper direction and avoid a much bigger disaster.
I haven't liked Sony for years but with this move I might give Sony a second chance.
Whatever harm came from cablegate was infinitesimal and eclipsed greatly when compared to the harm of Dick Cheney and his cronies' outing of Valerie Plame, an act which was done entirely for political and revenge related reasons. Any undercover operative or source she ever met with outside of the country very well may have been compromised due to that leak, causing their identities to be toxic to further operation, and due to the confidential nature of CIA business, we'll never know the true extent of the damage. As a conservative estimate, a few hundred thousand hours of man-time in training and undercover work may gone down the toilet. Nobody was ever convicted for the leak itself, and the pawn that is Scooter Libby was sacrificed at the altar in their place, except even his time was commuted by the president.
Funny how things work.
The point is if any harm came from Cablegate to civilians then Cablegate should never have happened.
Name one.
The inquiry set up specifically to discover if that assertion was true couldn't, and they had access to a lot more information than you.
How would we even know what happened? They aren't going to leak that information out to civilians. We don't know how much havoc it caused. The point is that when Manning made the lean Manning didn't care about the result of his own actions. He couldn't have checked all those files just like you or I couldn't but from what I saw there were details in there which if properly and thoroughly investigated might have led back to real people. Some of the details were so specific that there could only be one person to fit the details.
That sort of activities taken by government which put civilian lives at risk should be revealed to civilians if civilians have the power to put an end to it
Dude, the war became unpopular and we voted for a guy that would get us out. We specifically didn't vote for the guy that thought we should stick around for a hundred years.
the first problem being if you do leak as a whistleblower to protect civilians you gotta leak in a way which doesn't help any rival government.
Right, which is why he got someone to filter it all. Wikileaks took FOREVER shifting through that massive dump to keep important information from getting out. Spies names, and such. But anything that shows our government doing anything negative could be considered to "help any rival government".
The other problem is even if you leak those things it doesn't mean there is anything that can be accomplished by leaking to the public rather than to law enforcement
Well we certainly don't trust our government and megacorps to be benevolent as they say they are. This sort of thing is obvious to the people who have been claiming infractions for years, but it fell on deaf ears because there wasn't much proof. Oh look.
This sort of thing incrementally sways the political disposition of the masses. And it's had an effect.
Also, we got the fuck out of Iraq. (And should probably do the same for Afghanistan)
If the law enforcement is corrupt then it should not be leaked. If law enforcement isn't corrupt then it should be leaked to law enforcement. The civilians typically are the most corrupt in any scenario and are the least responsible with regard to dealing with leaked information. Also certain information should not be leaked regardless of the scenario because it's genocide and torture to release it. Releasing the identities of intelligence sources promotes genocide and torture, the very human rights abuses that we all claim to be against.
A spy has no human rights
False. Everyone has human rights at all times. Anyone violating those rights deserves to be punished. Anyone.
Moral rights aren't the same as legal rights. Moral rights do not actually exist except in the minds of those who share the morality. Legal rights exist regardless of morality because they are actually enforced by military or police. Human rights don't exist because there is no UN army to enforce them into existence.
Did Bradley Manning steal a whole bunch of military and government secrets and leak them? Yes: he's guilty.
Did Julian Assange then publish these secrets, knowing that he has zero way of predicting the consequences? Yes: he's guilty.
I know these are unpopular views.
However, for a society to work, we need to have rules. Just like it's bad logic to say, "I'm bigger than you, therefore I'm going to take your stuff," it's bad logic to say, "I know how to steal and publish these secrets, so I will."
I don't see any of Julian Assange's defenders stepping up to dox themselves on the internet, and reveal some of the stuff they've had on their hard drives over the years.
Hmm... what's in this folder labeled 'Windows CABs'? Looks like a bunch of pictures. Click. Wait a second... is that a goat?
Justifying this leak because we think all governments are bad is a foolish way of thinking. We don't know what government does and a lot of it we'd rather not know. Just get good people into office, make sure there are others in the system who can observe what they do, and we'll get the best results.
Trying to monitor our whole government by making it 'transparent' is going to result in a government that will be totally adversarial to us and will hide a lot of secrets. Those will be in places without any oversight. Think about this one.
I don't think Wikileaks solved a single problem, or advanced us at all. Most likely, it got some people killed for doing what they believed was right. It's time for Assange and Manning to face the consequences of their actions.
It's not illegal to receive or publish classified documents. Nor should it ever be illegal. If you're not responsible for keeping something secret you shouldn't be punished for doing your job as a journalist.
ending this guy's life for no fucking reason
Lamo is a paid informant. The reason is money.
Lamo isn't motivated by money. He's not rich. Try again.
Lamo is motivated by ego and patriotism.