I mean, even if you are paid much more than $100 a month, being legally and financially responsible for the shit that goes on through your server (since you are the EXIT node) could get you sent to jail for life and cost you huge amounts of money. Sounds completely insane for anyone to willingly run such a thing.
Even if you aren't held legally responsible some vigilante types will hold you morally responsible. Once again it's a bad idea to run a Tor exit node. So who exactly is running them and how do they keep themselves safe?
I think this is one of the biggest weaknesses with any password-based system. We're too dependent on uncontrolled terminals, and nobody has figured out to do SSL directly to the human brain.
We like to blanket ourselves in feel-good measures like PCI/etc, but the fact is that nobody really knows if that box you're punching a PIN/etc into has been tampered with.
Even if it's not tampered with it still leaks emissions. The idea of a password when your key strokes make sounds which are unique, the person who thought of this was just a nerd who didn't know what he was thinking up.
This idea would never work in practice. It only works on paper because the real world isn't anything like academia. You cannot rely on passwords to secure secrets. If it's that important it should probably be biometrics and then the person wouldn't have to memorize it either as only their fingerprint would work anyway.
But then you'll say someone could capture them and make them enter the password or a bullet to their head? Well that could happen with this game system. They either beat the game or take a bullet to the head.
There are many flaws in the scheme. If it's in the subconscious mind that doens't mean the enemy wont figure a way to get it out. If it's in the machine the enemy could get it out of that. It doesn't stop or provide a decrease in the incentive of the enemy to torture people, in fact it enhances the torture incentive by tricking people into thinking they can withstand torture and it encourages a reliance on centralized responsibility when in this case it should be decentralized.
What I'm saying is, if there is a password it's better never to let any one person know 100% of it. Let different people know different parts of it and spread them out around the world. Nuclear codes should not be some password that one guy has. It should be a password half a dozen have.
Exactly. This game is just a way to trick people into getting themselves tortured. It's really a dumb idea and whoever invented the concept doesn't really know shit.
Unbreakable crypto already exists. Unbreakable individuals never can exist. You can however have a group of very difficult to break people and this is fairly strong as long as the codes expire. It's not likely you'll capture and be able to torture all of them and without doing that you cannot reconstruct the password. If it's 5 people and you only can find 3 to torture, then you'll never get the password even if you break 3 out of 5.
That is not true. It has been proven that passphrases can be weaker than passwords, simply because words usually follow each other in an ordered pattern.
You'll be safe from brute force attacks, but not any attack that adds intelligence to the mix. And if the person cracking your password knows it uses music lyrics you love, you'll be even more at risk since it only has to test for the songs you like.
What you just described is NOT safety.
It's better to accept human weakness and not rely on individuals to protect important secrets and instead rely on groups of individuals to protect pieces of secrets. The nuclear codes should never be given to one person, but pieces of it should be given to a group of people so that all of them would have to be tortured in sequence in order to get the code.
Just because you can't remember the password it doesn't mean they wont torture you anyway.
If you're worried about being tortured you should buy a gun and be prepared to use it either to shoot your enemy or yourself in the head.
As far as whether or not some password will protect anything, any information which has to be protected like that shouldn't be in the possession of one person. It should be in the possession of a group of people.
So the idea it could be invulnerable to snooping is just not practical and it makes the entire thought experiment pointless. It's next to impossible to have an invulnerable to snooping form of communication.
Over a decade ago, I used to get my weed through a guy who wasn't yet 21. He was dealing to pay to go to college without having to hold down a job at the same time. Every time I'd go to pick up from him (and I found he did this to several other over-21 clients as well), he made us go to the liquor store and buy him beer as part of his payment. His mother knew he was dealing, and why so many people came around, but I think she had decided that was better than joining a gang or failing his classes because he was working all night flipping burgers. She also didn't seem to have a problem with him drinking, but she refused to buy alcohol for him. (She did, however, smoke his weed.)
There was another guy who I bought from, who liked to shoot the rats that ran across the cables outside his balcony. Since it was just a BB gun, all it ever did was knock the rats off the wire. It was only about a 10 foot drop, and they'd bounce off the ground and climb back up again. Then he'd shoot them again.
Selling weed is like working flipping burgers. It just pays better.
If you do it wrong you go to prison, if you do it wrong you get killed, robbed, beat.
I think it's more like this: Libertarians believe that they're in a Saturday morning cartoon. They live in a black and white world with them being the heroes and the government being the bad guys. Nothing else matters but defeating big old evil government.
They're like Optimus Prime as parodied in Robot Chicken
"Autobots, Megatron and the Decepticons were defeated today with only 50 humans dying in the cross fire... a new record!"
What kind of people actually work for government? The brainwashed minority. The people who are the least free in their thinking. This is why libertarians don't particularly like the government.
Unfortunately corporations aren't much better but at least corporations don't all make you take drug,blood, hair,dna and other ridiculous tests just to be a janitor.
Similar to libertarians, I think they all imagine that if not for the awful government holding them back they'd each become billionaires and live like dystopian sci-fi villains (minus the end where they are defeated).
The problem is most right-libertarians are witting slaves. While those others are unwitting slaves. When you're a witting slave you whore yourself out to the highest bidding corporation because that is the rational thing to do.
Ultimately everyone is being enslaved by the technology whether you're a right or left libertarian. The only difference is in how aware you are of it happening.
. You're following a master. You're an unwilling servant...a slave.
Uh, you make it sound like you believe this is actually a reality now, not a hypothetical situation. Who exactly, is the master?
It is reality now. The technology is the master and the corporations that own the technology own the people.
While I don't endorse the suicide pact that these anarchists have taken by going about it that way, I do understand that people want to be free and don't want to be enslaved by technology.
And anyone who is a libertarian of any sort hates most of all the slave mentality. Nothing causes more suffering than the slave mentality. It's completely counter-intuitive to want to be a slave and it's also completely irrational.
Imagine how much better your life could be when you're in control of it vs not being in control.
Anarchy is the least stable form of government. As soon as one person says "Hey, let's...(x,y.z)" and some others say "OK", it's broken; there is now a leader and followers.
Not to mention the fact that our own evolution has programmed us to be followers. We are behaviorally predisposed to follow a charismatic leader, because doing so provided enormous survival advantages for the tribe (if not necessarily for individual members) in human pre-history.
Anarchists have always struck me as a bunch of frustrated closet leaders who are all operating under the implicit assumption that things will be run their way one day. The only thing that unites them is their desire to tear down the existing power structure. If they ever succeeded, they would immediately turn on each other.
A follower is another name for a slave. If you think you're a slave that is fine, be a slave. But don't force others who don't want to be a slave to live like you decided to live. For this research we should have communities run by anarchists. Some people would rather die early than live as a slave.
Anarchy is the least stable form of government. As soon as one person says "Hey, let's...(x,y.z)" and some others say "OK", it's broken; there is now a leader and followers.
So let's chip everyone and make them all into drones. The crime rate would drop to 0%. Everyone would be made to agree with the government or their heart plugs would be pulled.
I think it is a little more complex than this. When things are going on that we do not like, there are many ways to deal with the conflict. In the US, for instance, we have a process to deal with problems using non-violent means. We can get laws passed, we can appeal to the courts, we can have people arrested who break the laws. Of course no everyone believes in this process, and the only mean of change for them is violence, terrorism, intimidation. For instance, many religious folks do not seem to have a lot of faith in the process of democracy, so the resort to violence, shooting doctors, intimidating people who disagree with them, calling such people names and ridiculing beliefs that do not agree with their own. They live in fear of those of think differently.
So this is where I think we are with the anarchists. Obviously these are people who do not base their actions on the process of law and order. If an anarchist does not like the implications of nanotechnology, and I agree some of those implications are frightening, they cannot just go and work within a framework of government diplomacy. They, presumably, cannot even take confort of some blowhard at the pulpit or on a rooftop condemning everyone who does not follow a dictatorial path. So what is the option? Violence, killing, intimidation. As was said, it is not science per se. But it is not corporations either. It is simply egotistical people who cannot imagine that they are so unimportant that everyone would not automatically agree with all of their beliefs.
Be realistic, that process takes a very long time and doesn't work if the elites in your hometown or your nation don't support what you want to do.
To put it simply, the political process is broken. That still doesn't mean it's smart to go killing scientists but honestly this is probably happening because Israel or some other country with an intelligence agency was targeting Iranian scientists. So I'm not shocked that scientists around the world are being targeted now. US allied countries started killing scientists who were doing things the US government didn't like and I wouldn't be surprised if these anarchists aren't controlled by a foreign government.
If these people are going out and killing people... There isn't much of a "Rationale". They got to an age where they found life isn't as nice as it should be, so they want to kill the people who they think are making life less nice. Not realizing they are doing more to make their lives and others much less nice in the process.
It's really stupid to kill scientists. Scientists make shit. Their fears are understandable but their tactics are really stupid. All that will happen is the scientists will run into the arms of the very evil that they hate so much.
Anarchist is a label for people who refuse to be constrained by society's limits. And one of those limits is not to kill.
Wrong, Anarchism in it's truest form is closer to socialism than chaos. Anarchism and lawlessness aren't the same. Anarchists don't want to abolish government so that they can go push old ladies down the stairs, that's a rebllious teenager's point of view. Anarchists just want everybody to be equal no person above or below any other in terms of power or pull. An anarchistic society would still have rules, but they would be decided by the community, there would be no police because the people of the community are responsible for it, every man, woman, and child. Please don't comment on things you know nothing about.
Explain why anarchists want to cut government spending including healthcare for grandma?
Anarchist is a worthless term except to attract attention on fliers. Ancap, ancom, ansoc, syndacilists, mutalists, illegalists, they all have claims to be anarchists. Historically ansocs and ancaps have the best claim to the term with ansocs foaming at the mouth and calling ancaps heretics whenever they call themselves anarchists without adjectives. It's all rather hilarious. Though, I will weigh in and say that ancaps seem to be the less zany and ancoms are completely disconnected from reality.
There are members in the Tea Party who don't like science and who don't believe in evolution.
Is this the new way to fight crime or the new way to fill up the private prisons? Drone manufacturers in bed with private prison owners in bed with law enforcement to create a militarized prison industrial complex?
I think drones and private prisons are worse than drugs an drug dealers. I support the drug dealers over the drone operators and private prisoner owners. What side are you on?
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, even if you are paid much more than $100 a month, being legally and financially responsible for the shit that goes on through your server (since you are the EXIT node) could get you sent to jail for life and cost you huge amounts of money. Sounds completely insane for anyone to willingly run such a thing.
Even if you aren't held legally responsible some vigilante types will hold you morally responsible. Once again it's a bad idea to run a Tor exit node. So who exactly is running them and how do they keep themselves safe?
I think this is one of the biggest weaknesses with any password-based system. We're too dependent on uncontrolled terminals, and nobody has figured out to do SSL directly to the human brain.
We like to blanket ourselves in feel-good measures like PCI/etc, but the fact is that nobody really knows if that box you're punching a PIN/etc into has been tampered with.
Even if it's not tampered with it still leaks emissions. The idea of a password when your key strokes make sounds which are unique, the person who thought of this was just a nerd who didn't know what he was thinking up.
This idea would never work in practice. It only works on paper because the real world isn't anything like academia. You cannot rely on passwords to secure secrets. If it's that important it should probably be biometrics and then the person wouldn't have to memorize it either as only their fingerprint would work anyway.
But then you'll say someone could capture them and make them enter the password or a bullet to their head? Well that could happen with this game system. They either beat the game or take a bullet to the head.
There are many flaws in the scheme. If it's in the subconscious mind that doens't mean the enemy wont figure a way to get it out. If it's in the machine the enemy could get it out of that. It doesn't stop or provide a decrease in the incentive of the enemy to torture people, in fact it enhances the torture incentive by tricking people into thinking they can withstand torture and it encourages a reliance on centralized responsibility when in this case it should be decentralized.
What I'm saying is, if there is a password it's better never to let any one person know 100% of it. Let different people know different parts of it and spread them out around the world. Nuclear codes should not be some password that one guy has. It should be a password half a dozen have.
State Security forces you to play this game?
Exactly. This game is just a way to trick people into getting themselves tortured.
It's really a dumb idea and whoever invented the concept doesn't really know shit.
Unbreakable crypto already exists. Unbreakable individuals never can exist. You can however have a group of very difficult to break people and this is fairly strong as long as the codes expire. It's not likely you'll capture and be able to torture all of them and without doing that you cannot reconstruct the password. If it's 5 people and you only can find 3 to torture, then you'll never get the password even if you break 3 out of 5.
That is not true. It has been proven that passphrases can be weaker than passwords, simply because words usually follow each other in an ordered pattern.
You'll be safe from brute force attacks, but not any attack that adds intelligence to the mix. And if the person cracking your password knows it uses music lyrics you love, you'll be even more at risk since it only has to test for the songs you like.
What you just described is NOT safety.
It's better to accept human weakness and not rely on individuals to protect important secrets and instead rely on groups of individuals to protect pieces of secrets. The nuclear codes should never be given to one person, but pieces of it should be given to a group of people so that all of them would have to be tortured in sequence in order to get the code.
Just because you can't remember the password it doesn't mean they wont torture you anyway.
If you're worried about being tortured you should buy a gun and be prepared to use it either to shoot your enemy or yourself in the head.
As far as whether or not some password will protect anything, any information which has to be protected like that shouldn't be in the possession of one person. It should be in the possession of a group of people.
So the idea it could be invulnerable to snooping is just not practical and it makes the entire thought experiment pointless.
It's next to impossible to have an invulnerable to snooping form of communication.
Over a decade ago, I used to get my weed through a guy who wasn't yet 21. He was dealing to pay to go to college without having to hold down a job at the same time. Every time I'd go to pick up from him (and I found he did this to several other over-21 clients as well), he made us go to the liquor store and buy him beer as part of his payment. His mother knew he was dealing, and why so many people came around, but I think she had decided that was better than joining a gang or failing his classes because he was working all night flipping burgers. She also didn't seem to have a problem with him drinking, but she refused to buy alcohol for him. (She did, however, smoke his weed.)
There was another guy who I bought from, who liked to shoot the rats that ran across the cables outside his balcony. Since it was just a BB gun, all it ever did was knock the rats off the wire. It was only about a 10 foot drop, and they'd bounce off the ground and climb back up again. Then he'd shoot them again.
Selling weed is like working flipping burgers. It just pays better.
If you do it wrong you go to prison, if you do it wrong you get killed, robbed, beat.
Scientists typically are the kind of people who would be targeted in a war scenario with Iran. Why aren't we considering that angle?
I think it's more like this: Libertarians believe that they're in a Saturday morning cartoon. They live in a black and white world with them being the heroes and the government being the bad guys. Nothing else matters but defeating big old evil government.
They're like Optimus Prime as parodied in Robot Chicken
"Autobots, Megatron and the Decepticons were defeated today with only 50 humans dying in the cross fire... a new record!"
What kind of people actually work for government? The brainwashed minority. The people who are the least free in their thinking. This is why libertarians don't particularly like the government.
Unfortunately corporations aren't much better but at least corporations don't all make you take drug,blood, hair,dna and other ridiculous tests just to be a janitor.
Similar to libertarians, I think they all imagine that if not for the awful government holding them back they'd each become billionaires and live like dystopian sci-fi villains (minus the end where they are defeated).
The problem is most right-libertarians are witting slaves. While those others are unwitting slaves.
When you're a witting slave you whore yourself out to the highest bidding corporation because that is the rational thing to do.
Ultimately everyone is being enslaved by the technology whether you're a right or left libertarian. The only difference is in how aware you are of it happening.
. You're following a master. You're an unwilling servant...a slave.
Uh, you make it sound like you believe this is actually a reality now, not a hypothetical situation. Who exactly, is the master?
It is reality now. The technology is the master and the corporations that own the technology own the people.
While I don't endorse the suicide pact that these anarchists have taken by going about it that way, I do understand that people want to be free and don't want to be enslaved by technology.
And anyone who is a libertarian of any sort hates most of all the slave mentality. Nothing causes more suffering than the slave mentality. It's completely counter-intuitive to want to be a slave and it's also completely irrational.
Imagine how much better your life could be when you're in control of it vs not being in control.
Not to mention the fact that our own evolution has programmed us to be followers. We are behaviorally predisposed to follow a charismatic leader, because doing so provided enormous survival advantages for the tribe (if not necessarily for individual members) in human pre-history.
Anarchists have always struck me as a bunch of frustrated closet leaders who are all operating under the implicit assumption that things will be run their way one day. The only thing that unites them is their desire to tear down the existing power structure. If they ever succeeded, they would immediately turn on each other.
A follower is another name for a slave. If you think you're a slave that is fine, be a slave. But don't force others who don't want to be a slave to live like you decided to live. For this research we should have communities run by anarchists. Some people would rather die early than live as a slave.
Anarchy is the least stable form of government. As soon as one person says "Hey, let's...(x,y.z)" and some others say "OK", it's broken; there is now a leader and followers.
So let's chip everyone and make them all into drones. The crime rate would drop to 0%. Everyone would be made to agree with the government or their heart plugs would be pulled.
Consider the fact that the US or Israel or US allies targeted Iranian scientists. Now scientists around the world are being targeted.
Who opened pandora's box?
I think it is a little more complex than this. When things are going on that we do not like, there are many ways to deal with the conflict. In the US, for instance, we have a process to deal with problems using non-violent means. We can get laws passed, we can appeal to the courts, we can have people arrested who break the laws. Of course no everyone believes in this process, and the only mean of change for them is violence, terrorism, intimidation. For instance, many religious folks do not seem to have a lot of faith in the process of democracy, so the resort to violence, shooting doctors, intimidating people who disagree with them, calling such people names and ridiculing beliefs that do not agree with their own. They live in fear of those of think differently.
So this is where I think we are with the anarchists. Obviously these are people who do not base their actions on the process of law and order. If an anarchist does not like the implications of nanotechnology, and I agree some of those implications are frightening, they cannot just go and work within a framework of government diplomacy. They, presumably, cannot even take confort of some blowhard at the pulpit or on a rooftop condemning everyone who does not follow a dictatorial path. So what is the option? Violence, killing, intimidation. As was said, it is not science per se. But it is not corporations either. It is simply egotistical people who cannot imagine that they are so unimportant that everyone would not automatically agree with all of their beliefs.
Be realistic, that process takes a very long time and doesn't work if the elites in your hometown or your nation don't support what you want to do.
To put it simply, the political process is broken. That still doesn't mean it's smart to go killing scientists but honestly this is probably happening because Israel or some other country with an intelligence agency was targeting Iranian scientists. So I'm not shocked that scientists around the world are being targeted now. US allied countries started killing scientists who were doing things the US government didn't like and I wouldn't be surprised if these anarchists aren't controlled by a foreign government.
If these people are going out and killing people... There isn't much of a "Rationale". They got to an age where they found life isn't as nice as it should be, so they want to kill the people who they think are making life less nice. Not realizing they are doing more to make their lives and others much less nice in the process.
It's really stupid to kill scientists. Scientists make shit. Their fears are understandable but their tactics are really stupid. All that will happen is the scientists will run into the arms of the very evil that they hate so much.
The scientists are just doing a job just like everyone else. They don't run Monsanto. They aren't the shareholders.
Why can't we just call them that?
Are they not right wing anarchists? They hate the government too!
Anarchist is a label for people who refuse to be constrained by society's limits. And one of those limits is not to kill.
Wrong, Anarchism in it's truest form is closer to socialism than chaos. Anarchism and lawlessness aren't the same. Anarchists don't want to abolish government so that they can go push old ladies down the stairs, that's a rebllious teenager's point of view. Anarchists just want everybody to be equal no person above or below any other in terms of power or pull. An anarchistic society would still have rules, but they would be decided by the community, there would be no police because the people of the community are responsible for it, every man, woman, and child. Please don't comment on things you know nothing about.
Explain why anarchists want to cut government spending including healthcare for grandma?
Anarchist is a worthless term except to attract attention on fliers. Ancap, ancom, ansoc, syndacilists, mutalists, illegalists, they all have claims to be anarchists. Historically ansocs and ancaps have the best claim to the term with ansocs foaming at the mouth and calling ancaps heretics whenever they call themselves anarchists without adjectives. It's all rather hilarious. Though, I will weigh in and say that ancaps seem to be the less zany and ancoms are completely disconnected from reality.
There are members in the Tea Party who don't like science and who don't believe in evolution.
Is this the new way to fight crime or the new way to fill up the private prisons?
Drone manufacturers in bed with private prison owners in bed with law enforcement to create a militarized prison industrial complex?
I think drones and private prisons are worse than drugs an drug dealers. I support the drug dealers over the drone operators and private prisoner owners. What side are you on?
Seriously we are using drug sniffing drones?
The drones are more dangerous than the drugs in this situation!