First, as AC you have zero credibility and zero standing. Second, however stupid you may be and repeat the same vacuous arguments time and again, deploying malware that hacks a computer in a country needs to be legal in that country or otherwise is a criminal act in that country. The FBI deployed malware that hacked computers all over the globe and that makes them criminals all over the globe. The only possible exception is that US, as there what they did may have been legal.
You are quite wrong. The FBI hacked people abroad without having any authorization to do so in the counties these people reside. Maybe Interpol could do it legally, but not the FBI. That makes them criminal hackers, nothing else.
If they can hack into it, encryption does not help. If the cannot hack into it, encryption is not needed. Hence encryption is irrelevant for the discussion at hand.
The Nazis thought they were doing noble and moral things. Never trust any government body that is thinking it does something noble and moral.
So you are saying as long as the FBI does not use anything they got in hacking, they can hack away freely? I very much doubt that.
The problem here is that the FBI hackers are committing criminal acts abroad. Of course, they will be difficult to identify, but in theory they could be extradited and jailed in the countries where people were hacked by them. Of course, that is also not going to happen either, but it sets a tone and not a good one.
And they will have done it to computers abroad, committing a number of computer crimes in the process. A US warrant is not a global warrant in any way.
Forget it. Encryption protects you against the computer being stolen while off, and that is it. Unless you want to encrypt each file individually and then decrypt each one when used? That not much better: Whoever criminals hack your machine just need to wait until you unlock a file and then can record your password.
There is some truth in this: The defenders of freedom must succeed every time, while the fascists can remove freedoms bit by bit and eventually they are gone.
Or maybe make it "killed around 50 people in some place"? Or maybe we do not want to stipulate a person did it? Now I have it! "A kinetic impact happened in some place at some time." Unspecific enough?
No, it does not. First, there is suppression of the noise-floor, i.e. no traffic when you do not speak. And second, there is the voice-codec compressing different speech differently. Apparently, this even leaks some amount of what is being said. A better (future) standard would add cover-traffic, with isochronous data-rates and then that leak gets plugged. You could still identify voice-traffic, as almost no other stream-type is isochronous at this data-rate.
There is good research for identifying phone traffic from encrypted data packets. It is rather simple, it seems as you can see typical voice-patterns and what the voice-codecs make of them in the data-rate profile.
These are pretty primitive, yet very flexible cores. Worthless for most current loads, but that may change. However the comparison to modern CPUs is unfair. A proper comparison would be to modern GPUs.
The thing people fail to understand is that you can always do thought-crime securely when you have secure anonymity. It is in the very definition of anonymity. And this whole thing is a trade-off, but the modern enlightened stance is that freedom is more important than suppression of though-crime and hence anonymity that works is hugely desirable.
Crimes with a physical component are different. For example, selling counterfeit objects (passports,...) via a Tor hidden service still requires physical shipping, and that is where you can get them, even with Tor being perfectly secure. It does take a bit of traditional police-work though, and that is slow and tedious and law enforcement in many places has apparently gotten fat and lazy.
For Tor? It has and very much so. When the FBI quite criminally (for most non-US citizen affected) mass-hacked Freedom Hosting (and they hacked everybody they could, quite a few users of entirely legal services among them), nobody that had updated their Tor Browser when prompted was affected. It was just people that used the old one for two weeks or so longer than they should have. And here is the kicker: Tor Browser releases have change notes and these state what was patched. And there is the patched source, and you can see what was fixed. And that is exactly how low-cost vulnerability-finding works.
So yes, unpatched is pretty central to how secure it is. Requires some minimal understanding on how things work in the real world to see that though.
That is bullshit, and you know it. Calling yourself a physicist or mathematician unqualified is a claim that you have permanent academic title of that nature. (If the person is clearly a student from the context, that is not unqualified anymore. The language is relaxed at Universities in this regard, but not in general.) The only thing that saves you in a formal context is that "Fuehren eines akademischen Titels ohne Berechtigung" is usually only prosecuted on PhD-level.
Similarly, doing mathematics does not make you a mathematician. (Same for physics.) Otherwise a 1st grader could call himself "mathematician" for having done simple sums.
Which law? There are a bout 150 different versions and the FBI will hack anybody (which is criminal in almost all countries for them to do). So, you are right, if the FBI stopped breaking the law, this problem would go away.
Actually, a student of physics has the title "Stud. Phys." or "Cand. Phys." while not having graduated. The titles are temporary. They become proper physicists (with a permanent academic title) only after graduation. The actual title names may have changed after Bologna, but a student of Physics is most decidedly not a "physicist" in Gemany. Try calling yourself "physicist" in anything official while still being only a student, and see how "Fuehren eines akademischen Titles ohne Berechtingung" plays out for you.
Here it is: Any place and any time there will be a potential terrorist attack. Oh, you want real predictions? Funny, this magic algorithm cannot deliver those either.
My guess is that this person did not even try. "I find the articles I read about it very plausible." already says it all, as does the classic fallacy of trying to make the proponents of the established facts prove their position instead of the proponents of the extraordinary claims. (The systemd-sect is known for using this tactics aggressively as well.) A certain sign of an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
First, as AC you have zero credibility and zero standing. Second, however stupid you may be and repeat the same vacuous arguments time and again, deploying malware that hacks a computer in a country needs to be legal in that country or otherwise is a criminal act in that country. The FBI deployed malware that hacked computers all over the globe and that makes them criminals all over the globe. The only possible exception is that US, as there what they did may have been legal.
You are quite wrong. The FBI hacked people abroad without having any authorization to do so in the counties these people reside. Maybe Interpol could do it legally, but not the FBI. That makes them criminal hackers, nothing else.
If they can hack into it, encryption does not help. If the cannot hack into it, encryption is not needed. Hence encryption is irrelevant for the discussion at hand.
The Nazis thought they were doing noble and moral things. Never trust any government body that is thinking it does something noble and moral.
So you are saying as long as the FBI does not use anything they got in hacking, they can hack away freely? I very much doubt that.
The problem here is that the FBI hackers are committing criminal acts abroad. Of course, they will be difficult to identify, but in theory they could be extradited and jailed in the countries where people were hacked by them. Of course, that is also not going to happen either, but it sets a tone and not a good one.
And they will have done it to computers abroad, committing a number of computer crimes in the process. A US warrant is not a global warrant in any way.
Forget it. Encryption protects you against the computer being stolen while off, and that is it. Unless you want to encrypt each file individually and then decrypt each one when used? That not much better: Whoever criminals hack your machine just need to wait until you unlock a file and then can record your password.
Indeed. As to emergency powers, I wonder whether the French will manage to get rid of the Government emergency powers again. Somehow I doubt it.
There is some truth in this: The defenders of freedom must succeed every time, while the fascists can remove freedoms bit by bit and eventually they are gone.
It seems it requires yet another fascist catastrophe with global impact to make it clear (for a while) that what they are doing is not a good idea.
The real lesson here is that the founder's opinion of politicians was not abysmally bad enough.
Or maybe make it "killed around 50 people in some place"? Or maybe we do not want to stipulate a person did it? Now I have it! "A kinetic impact happened in some place at some time." Unspecific enough?
Motivation is important when you want to prevent a repetition. If you just want to be outraged, it is completely irrelevant of course.
No, it does not. First, there is suppression of the noise-floor, i.e. no traffic when you do not speak. And second, there is the voice-codec compressing different speech differently. Apparently, this even leaks some amount of what is being said. A better (future) standard would add cover-traffic, with isochronous data-rates and then that leak gets plugged. You could still identify voice-traffic, as almost no other stream-type is isochronous at this data-rate.
There is good research for identifying phone traffic from encrypted data packets. It is rather simple, it seems as you can see typical voice-patterns and what the voice-codecs make of them in the data-rate profile.
These are pretty primitive, yet very flexible cores. Worthless for most current loads, but that may change. However the comparison to modern CPUs is unfair. A proper comparison would be to modern GPUs.
The thing people fail to understand is that you can always do thought-crime securely when you have secure anonymity. It is in the very definition of anonymity. And this whole thing is a trade-off, but the modern enlightened stance is that freedom is more important than suppression of though-crime and hence anonymity that works is hugely desirable.
Crimes with a physical component are different. For example, selling counterfeit objects (passports, ...) via a Tor hidden service still requires physical shipping, and that is where you can get them, even with Tor being perfectly secure. It does take a bit of traditional police-work though, and that is slow and tedious and law enforcement in many places has apparently gotten fat and lazy.
For Tor? It has and very much so. When the FBI quite criminally (for most non-US citizen affected) mass-hacked Freedom Hosting (and they hacked everybody they could, quite a few users of entirely legal services among them), nobody that had updated their Tor Browser when prompted was affected. It was just people that used the old one for two weeks or so longer than they should have. And here is the kicker: Tor Browser releases have change notes and these state what was patched. And there is the patched source, and you can see what was fixed. And that is exactly how low-cost vulnerability-finding works.
So yes, unpatched is pretty central to how secure it is. Requires some minimal understanding on how things work in the real world to see that though.
That is bullshit, and you know it. Calling yourself a physicist or mathematician unqualified is a claim that you have permanent academic title of that nature. (If the person is clearly a student from the context, that is not unqualified anymore. The language is relaxed at Universities in this regard, but not in general.) The only thing that saves you in a formal context is that "Fuehren eines akademischen Titels ohne Berechtigung" is usually only prosecuted on PhD-level.
Similarly, doing mathematics does not make you a mathematician. (Same for physics.) Otherwise a 1st grader could call himself "mathematician" for having done simple sums.
That idiot is obviously a government propaganda shill, of course he would recommend things that are dangerous.
Which law? There are a bout 150 different versions and the FBI will hack anybody (which is criminal in almost all countries for them to do). So, you are right, if the FBI stopped breaking the law, this problem would go away.
Actually, a student of physics has the title "Stud. Phys." or "Cand. Phys." while not having graduated. The titles are temporary. They become proper physicists (with a permanent academic title) only after graduation. The actual title names may have changed after Bologna, but a student of Physics is most decidedly not a "physicist" in Gemany. Try calling yourself "physicist" in anything official while still being only a student, and see how "Fuehren eines akademischen Titles ohne Berechtingung" plays out for you.
As they only predict potential attacks, whatever they predict will be correct, no matter how meaningless.
Here it is: Any place and any time there will be a potential terrorist attack. Oh, you want real predictions? Funny, this magic algorithm cannot deliver those either.
My guess is that this person did not even try. "I find the articles I read about it very plausible." already says it all, as does the classic fallacy of trying to make the proponents of the established facts prove their position instead of the proponents of the extraordinary claims. (The systemd-sect is known for using this tactics aggressively as well.) A certain sign of an idiot.
What I was pointing at (or at least trying to) is that either the phrasing of TFA is incorrect or TFA is quoting clueless people.
I certainly agree to that.