I disagree. With security of private information, it's either broken or not broken. Corruption of the overseers is just as important an issue as location or encryption status of the files.
Also, just because it predates the FISA override doesn't mean that the FISA override is not relevant. In theory it might be a better system. In practice not so much.
It's no longer about letter of the law -- it's about potential for abuse. Time and again we've seen that the potential for gain outweighs the letter and spirit of the law among many of those with power.
To extend your contraband in the locked vault metaphor -- what if you knew the person with key had abused his access to the vault in the past? What if time and again, different 'guys with keys' used their access improperly? At what point do you design a system to eliminate the potential of a guy with a key having access to the contraband?
If you're involved in security systems, the answer is that your first design should eliminate the possibilty of a guy with a key gaining unauthorized access.
But the real problem with your analogy is that it ignores the fundamental problem with data collection -- the government shouldn't be collecting the information in the first place. Regardless of whether it's a 'better' system than the current one, both systems are IMO unconstitutional and illegal.
There has been a lot of suspicion that in order to avoid having to go to FISA court for after-the-fact warrants, the UK and the US just swapped intel on the others' domestic activity. Since the UK can legally spy on Americans (by their law) and vice versa, and since intelligence trading is legal, the idea is that this was used to circumvent prohibitions against domestic spying.
Re: the Kool-aid, my interpretation is that 'drinking the kool-aid' refers to believing fringe ideas blindly -- the important part is the 'fringe'. I think it's an allusion to not taking the requisite grain of salt when dealing with loonies -- and that it has little to do with Leary at all, but instead derives completely from Jonestown (interestingly enough, they didn't use Kool-aid at Jonestown -- it was Flavor-Aid).
The reason I think 'drinking the kool-aid' is used so much now is that it's a way of not just insulting the person doing the drinking, but also a way of discrediting the ideas they are believing -- since the 'kool-aid' is a metaphor for the loony ideas. On conservative and progressive websites, blogs, etc, you'll see a lot of kool-aid references, because both sides see the other side as a fringe, as compared to the 'mainstream' they feel a part of.
Just my $.02... I'm sure other interpretations are just as valid (if not more so:))
Except of course that FISA oversight can be ignored via Executive Order (legally or not, that's one way it's happening).
In terms of this being a better system than the current one, sure, I agree. But as far as I'm concerned, a pre-emptive warrant is required for every instance of call-logging or wiretapping. Period. So the only way to fix the system is to stop all programs like this one.
"ut seriously, ThinThread as originally constituted contains the mechanism necessary for oversight. "
Oversight by whom? A court (like FISA)? Or by another level of NSA bureaucrats?
It's been suggested (sorry, can't find link right now, but IIRC, this rationale was given by people in the government) that the reason NSA hasn't gone to the FISA court for all their wiretapping is because they knew they wouldn't get approval. Authorized by executive order, of course.
So how does a mechanism for oversight, whether Congressional or Judicial, really make a difference when the Executive branch can choose when that oversight is applied? The fox watching the henhouse and all that....
Oh I see, if it's being done already, then obviously it's OK to do.
ECHELON is not for domestic surveillance (though it is possible, even likely, that it has been used or is being used for domestic surveillance, whether directly or via intelligence-swap with the UK).
In theory, the NSA domestic surveillance programs are very different from ECHELON, and while discussion of ECHELON is relevant, calling slashdotters a bunch of Kool-aid drinkers is pointless, and doesn't apply here at all. You've used it as a tag-line insult that has nothing to do with the discussion -- do you even know what 'drinking the Kool-aid' means? I think maybe there's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, there.
"* Analyzed the data to identify relationships between callers and chronicle their contacts. Only when evidence of a potential threat had been developed would analysts be able to request decryption of the records.
Says who? The NSA?
Who defines what a potential threat is? A judge of the court, or some bureaucrats in the NSA?
Why would we trust an agaency known to play games with the law to have access to this data? A layer of separation (the encryption) doesn't change the fact that the data is still there for misuse. Just because it's harder to tie to an individual doesn't mean it can be misused.
All the encryption does is make it harder for a rogue/spy to get access to actual phone numbers. Systemic abuse or misuse of the data is not prevented at all. And frankly, systemic abuse/misuse frightens me much more than one person being able to misuse the data.
"Thanks to our WONDERFUL government sponsored telecom monopolies, the US is generally way behind the rest of the western world in terms of cell phone technologies."
I'm not denying that telcom monopolies have inhibited adoption of new technologies, but...
Early adoption has a lot to do with this as well, as in any industry where tech deployment is very expensive. Sure, there may be newer and better tech out there, but the cost of deployment is more than the benefit of upgrading.
Laying this problem at the feet of the telco monopolies is FUD.
"XM radio... Great stuff, love what it offers, but I've NEVER gone an entire day without some interruption of signa."
Case in point, but I wasn't aware that you could post to slashdot using XM radio.
"garage doors. It's not as bad these days, but our garage door would spontaneously open and close when aircraft were near."
I suppose that's what you get when you live in an airport hangar:)
Seriously, though, this is just a proof that it COULD be done, not that it should be. My feeling is that any control system needs to be hard-wired, but all the fluff could be wireless (as AKAImBatman noted, inflight entertainment systems for example).
The big problem with practicality I see is that you've got to wire for power to the mechanicals anyway, so there's not much advantage gained by not running optic along with it -- you already need space for the conduit.
Plus all the hackability and dependability issues.
Well, the geocaching exercise is not a scavenger hunt.
And it's not like the UoChi organizers decreed that theirs is the world's biggest scavenger hunt. Even if they did, I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem with not calling it that should someone prove another scavenger hunt to be larger.
Sure, there's some hubris involved with calling the MLB championship the World Series, but when the Series was initiated, it was without a doubt the world championship by default.
Instead of getting your panties all in a wad, why not create a larger scavenger hunt wherever you live, so then you can claim the title of "World's Largest Scavenger Hunt". Or maybe prove that the UoChi hunt isn't the largest.
Not saying Dell's in trouble -- just saying that the market is no longer growing as fast as it has been. Dell doesn't want to maintain the status quo, they want to increase their sales.
"The Chinese government is not responsible for the censorship."
Let me get this straight...
Because a company chooses to pre-emptively censor its content to avoid government action against it, the government is not responsible for the censorship? Are you kidding?
Do you think Baidu would censor this wiki if it wasn't the policy of China to censor content and prosecute (or otherwise handle) offenders?
That's afwul, awful, apologist logic.
Glass houses and throwing stones and all that (I'm in the US) but really...
I started using the MAS line of products in 2000, so I'm not sure of prior to then -- though a lot of the old reference docs did say SOTA MAS90. Last year (or the year before?) Sage told us they were rebranding Best back to Sage, then about six months later decided to change back to Best. For while, we were getting MAS200 docs from Sage while getting Abra docs from Best. I guess they just wanted to burn through the old letterhead inventory:).
The growth of the PC Hardware market is slowing. Dell's sales aren't going to increase if they don't get into the retail sales market (particularly as they lose market share to HP etc as mentioned in TFA), and the only way for them to do that effectively is through resellers.
Anecdotally -- my employer (~90 employees) typically leases computers; at end of lease, we either buy at $1 or return if we have FMV purchase option instead on the computers. Past two years, we've not been leasing new boxes except for the art/design teams who need Macs. Instead, we've been replacing individual boxes as they go.
We're still getting Dells -- but now getting them through a VAR (Zones and/or PCMall, if you're curious). Since we're not buying 20+ PCs, it's more expensive to go through Dell than through the VARs -- and honestly, more of a PITA, since the VARs bend over backwards for us.
There are a ton of companies like mine, and Dell would be moronic to not want our business. If Dell needs to sell indirectly to get the business, they'll continue to do so.
Of note, though, we still buy our service contracts direct from Dell -- and that's where they are making a ton of cash off us. And the poor VARs aren't making anything off us except for when we buy peripherals, since the margin in the boxes is almost zero, and we're going to Dell for the service contracts.
MAS90, MAS200, and MAS500 are made by Best Software (formerly Sage Software, though originally Best Software).
MS's accounting software is Dynamics. Redmond did not call you to sell a competitor's product.
Furthermore, MAS products are generally not sold directly by Best, they are sold via resellers.
You just happened to have an agressive sales person contact you, that's all. In no way is that trying to "force a sale." There was no implied threat of lawsuit for failing to have licenses or anything like that.
I understand perfectly. But technology is not a purely evolutionary system, and JGE is not an acceptable goal -- which is why I referred to ID in my response.
If you couldn't understand what my point was WRT biological evolution theory vs. technological evolution, I'll try to explain differently. There is no reason to settle for JGE when we have the resources and ability to work on other dev lines that may yield better than current 'JGE' results. Or, rather, it would raise the bar of 'Just Good Enough'.
Since we all know that Octopi have 8 tentacles, lets go ahead and substitute.
Robot Tentacle + Tentacle Pr0n = 8 (Robot + pr0n)
We can, of course, substitute I for Robot, leaving us with
8 (I + pr0n)
Since that's a capital I, we know it represents an integer, and not an imaginary number. Given that the Romans were into tentacle pr0n, we can assume that's a Roman numeral, and substitute accordingly.
8 (1 + pr0n)
Now, we all know the emoticon 8(1 represents an unhappy glasses-wearing person with a scruffy asymmetrical beard, or an unhappy nerd. So via substitution we have:
No, the point is that without intervention into the system (say, by developing a currently unsuited species) the evolution concept doesn't work to maximum benefit.
My point was that without development of unsuited species now, then they won't be there later. The entire dev line, gone, because the past iterations were unsuitable to the market at that time -- we've lost a lot of potential.
It's a little different with biological evolution, since extinction doesn't truly exist in tech development. But by ignoring other dev branches because we fail to appreciate their potential, as in the OP in this thread, may mean that we end up with fewer viable alternatives, and therefore the JGE solution may not be as good as if we had full-fledged competitors from different dev lines.
It doesn't even look like a real nude woman[1], it's not even close to anatomically correct. It's less realistic than a Barbie doll with the clothes stripped off. Last time I checked, Barbie dolls didn't have an 'M' rating -- they didn't have a rating at all!
[1] Or like the pictures and videos we've all seen, for those of us who lack a basis for comparison:)
"So, let's all agree with Andy, then go on using the best tools for our purposes."
That's looking at it from an end-user standpoint. The problem with that view is that the better method will never become viable.
To extend your evolution metaphor, you're limiting yourself to a subset of the genepool. Sure, a species that has already been selected for / adapted to that particular niche would outcompete *now* in that niche; but that does not mean that another species allowed to adapt to that niche wouldn' out-compete the one that's already there -- especially should conditions change in that niche (as constantly happens with technology).
To give a biological example, look at the large animals of the Americas. They evolved to fill niches in the absence of humans. Once humans came over, they were all killed off or died out most likely as a result of human interference -- they hadn't the traits to survive in the new niche (with the exception of the buffalo). Yet big animals in Africa survived alongside human hunters -- they would have been better suited to the 'new' American niche.
My point is that just because something has the most developed tools for the job *now* doesn't mean that it's lineal successors would be the best tool for the job *later*. Who knows what we're missing if we limit ourselves to the current development lines?
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. With security of private information, it's either broken or not broken. Corruption of the overseers is just as important an issue as location or encryption status of the files.
Also, just because it predates the FISA override doesn't mean that the FISA override is not relevant. In theory it might be a better system. In practice not so much.
It's no longer about letter of the law -- it's about potential for abuse. Time and again we've seen that the potential for gain outweighs the letter and spirit of the law among many of those with power.
To extend your contraband in the locked vault metaphor -- what if you knew the person with key had abused his access to the vault in the past? What if time and again, different 'guys with keys' used their access improperly? At what point do you design a system to eliminate the potential of a guy with a key having access to the contraband?
If you're involved in security systems, the answer is that your first design should eliminate the possibilty of a guy with a key gaining unauthorized access.
But the real problem with your analogy is that it ignores the fundamental problem with data collection -- the government shouldn't be collecting the information in the first place. Regardless of whether it's a 'better' system than the current one, both systems are IMO unconstitutional and illegal.
There has been a lot of suspicion that in order to avoid having to go to FISA court for after-the-fact warrants, the UK and the US just swapped intel on the others' domestic activity. Since the UK can legally spy on Americans (by their law) and vice versa, and since intelligence trading is legal, the idea is that this was used to circumvent prohibitions against domestic spying.
:))
Re: the Kool-aid, my interpretation is that 'drinking the kool-aid' refers to believing fringe ideas blindly -- the important part is the 'fringe'. I think it's an allusion to not taking the requisite grain of salt when dealing with loonies -- and that it has little to do with Leary at all, but instead derives completely from Jonestown (interestingly enough, they didn't use Kool-aid at Jonestown -- it was Flavor-Aid).
The reason I think 'drinking the kool-aid' is used so much now is that it's a way of not just insulting the person doing the drinking, but also a way of discrediting the ideas they are believing -- since the 'kool-aid' is a metaphor for the loony ideas. On conservative and progressive websites, blogs, etc, you'll see a lot of kool-aid references, because both sides see the other side as a fringe, as compared to the 'mainstream' they feel a part of.
Just my $.02... I'm sure other interpretations are just as valid (if not more so
Except of course that FISA oversight can be ignored via Executive Order (legally or not, that's one way it's happening).
In terms of this being a better system than the current one, sure, I agree. But as far as I'm concerned, a pre-emptive warrant is required for every instance of call-logging or wiretapping. Period. So the only way to fix the system is to stop all programs like this one.
"ut seriously, ThinThread as originally constituted contains the mechanism necessary for oversight. "
Oversight by whom? A court (like FISA)? Or by another level of NSA bureaucrats?
It's been suggested (sorry, can't find link right now, but IIRC, this rationale was given by people in the government) that the reason NSA hasn't gone to the FISA court for all their wiretapping is because they knew they wouldn't get approval. Authorized by executive order, of course.
So how does a mechanism for oversight, whether Congressional or Judicial, really make a difference when the Executive branch can choose when that oversight is applied? The fox watching the henhouse and all that....
Oh I see, if it's being done already, then obviously it's OK to do.
ECHELON is not for domestic surveillance (though it is possible, even likely, that it has been used or is being used for domestic surveillance, whether directly or via intelligence-swap with the UK).
In theory, the NSA domestic surveillance programs are very different from ECHELON, and while discussion of ECHELON is relevant, calling slashdotters a bunch of Kool-aid drinkers is pointless, and doesn't apply here at all. You've used it as a tag-line insult that has nothing to do with the discussion -- do you even know what 'drinking the Kool-aid' means? I think maybe there's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, there.
"* Analyzed the data to identify relationships between callers and chronicle their contacts. Only when evidence of a potential threat had been developed would analysts be able to request decryption of the records.
Says who? The NSA?
Who defines what a potential threat is? A judge of the court, or some bureaucrats in the NSA?
Why would we trust an agaency known to play games with the law to have access to this data? A layer of separation (the encryption) doesn't change the fact that the data is still there for misuse. Just because it's harder to tie to an individual doesn't mean it can be misused.
All the encryption does is make it harder for a rogue/spy to get access to actual phone numbers. Systemic abuse or misuse of the data is not prevented at all. And frankly, systemic abuse/misuse frightens me much more than one person being able to misuse the data.
In re: offtopic mod: "im surprised you didnt get it."
Got it. Didn't want it. Threw it back.
"Thanks to our WONDERFUL government sponsored telecom monopolies, the US is generally way behind the rest of the western world in terms of cell phone technologies."
I'm not denying that telcom monopolies have inhibited adoption of new technologies, but...
Early adoption has a lot to do with this as well, as in any industry where tech deployment is very expensive. Sure, there may be newer and better tech out there, but the cost of deployment is more than the benefit of upgrading.
Laying this problem at the feet of the telco monopolies is FUD.
I'm confused.
So you're saying the idea will fly?
"XM radio... Great stuff, love what it offers, but I've NEVER gone an entire day without some interruption of signa."
:)
Case in point, but I wasn't aware that you could post to slashdot using XM radio.
"garage doors. It's not as bad these days, but our garage door would spontaneously open and close when aircraft were near."
I suppose that's what you get when you live in an airport hangar
Seriously, though, this is just a proof that it COULD be done, not that it should be. My feeling is that any control system needs to be hard-wired, but all the fluff could be wireless (as AKAImBatman noted, inflight entertainment systems for example).
The big problem with practicality I see is that you've got to wire for power to the mechanicals anyway, so there's not much advantage gained by not running optic along with it -- you already need space for the conduit.
Plus all the hackability and dependability issues.
Well, the geocaching exercise is not a scavenger hunt.
And it's not like the UoChi organizers decreed that theirs is the world's biggest scavenger hunt. Even if they did, I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem with not calling it that should someone prove another scavenger hunt to be larger.
Sure, there's some hubris involved with calling the MLB championship the World Series, but when the Series was initiated, it was without a doubt the world championship by default.
Instead of getting your panties all in a wad, why not create a larger scavenger hunt wherever you live, so then you can claim the title of "World's Largest Scavenger Hunt". Or maybe prove that the UoChi hunt isn't the largest.
Not saying Dell's in trouble -- just saying that the market is no longer growing as fast as it has been. Dell doesn't want to maintain the status quo, they want to increase their sales.
Soylent fuel is people!
"The Chinese government is not responsible for the censorship."
Let me get this straight...
Because a company chooses to pre-emptively censor its content to avoid government action against it, the government is not responsible for the censorship? Are you kidding?
Do you think Baidu would censor this wiki if it wasn't the policy of China to censor content and prosecute (or otherwise handle) offenders?
That's afwul, awful, apologist logic.
Glass houses and throwing stones and all that (I'm in the US) but really...
I started using the MAS line of products in 2000, so I'm not sure of prior to then -- though a lot of the old reference docs did say SOTA MAS90. Last year (or the year before?) Sage told us they were rebranding Best back to Sage, then about six months later decided to change back to Best. For while, we were getting MAS200 docs from Sage while getting Abra docs from Best. I guess they just wanted to burn through the old letterhead inventory :).
The growth of the PC Hardware market is slowing. Dell's sales aren't going to increase if they don't get into the retail sales market (particularly as they lose market share to HP etc as mentioned in TFA), and the only way for them to do that effectively is through resellers.
Anecdotally -- my employer (~90 employees) typically leases computers; at end of lease, we either buy at $1 or return if we have FMV purchase option instead on the computers. Past two years, we've not been leasing new boxes except for the art/design teams who need Macs. Instead, we've been replacing individual boxes as they go.
We're still getting Dells -- but now getting them through a VAR (Zones and/or PCMall, if you're curious). Since we're not buying 20+ PCs, it's more expensive to go through Dell than through the VARs -- and honestly, more of a PITA, since the VARs bend over backwards for us.
There are a ton of companies like mine, and Dell would be moronic to not want our business. If Dell needs to sell indirectly to get the business, they'll continue to do so.
Of note, though, we still buy our service contracts direct from Dell -- and that's where they are making a ton of cash off us. And the poor VARs aren't making anything off us except for when we buy peripherals, since the margin in the boxes is almost zero, and we're going to Dell for the service contracts.
MAS90, MAS200, and MAS500 are made by Best Software (formerly Sage Software, though originally Best Software).
MS's accounting software is Dynamics. Redmond did not call you to sell a competitor's product.
Furthermore, MAS products are generally not sold directly by Best, they are sold via resellers.
You just happened to have an agressive sales person contact you, that's all. In no way is that trying to "force a sale." There was no implied threat of lawsuit for failing to have licenses or anything like that.
I understand perfectly. But technology is not a purely evolutionary system, and JGE is not an acceptable goal -- which is why I referred to ID in my response.
If you couldn't understand what my point was WRT biological evolution theory vs. technological evolution, I'll try to explain differently. There is no reason to settle for JGE when we have the resources and ability to work on other dev lines that may yield better than current 'JGE' results. Or, rather, it would raise the bar of 'Just Good Enough'.
Must be some kind of fuzzy math you got there. Sorry to disprove you, but:
Robot Tentacle + Tentacle Pr0n = Tentacle (Robot + Pr0n)
Since we all know that Octopi have 8 tentacles, lets go ahead and substitute.
Robot Tentacle + Tentacle Pr0n = 8 (Robot + pr0n)
We can, of course, substitute I for Robot, leaving us with
8 (I + pr0n)
Since that's a capital I, we know it represents an integer, and not an imaginary number. Given that the Romans were into tentacle pr0n, we can assume that's a Roman numeral, and substitute accordingly.
8 (1 + pr0n)
Now, we all know the emoticon 8(1 represents an unhappy glasses-wearing person with a scruffy asymmetrical beard, or an unhappy nerd. So via substitution we have:
Tenticle Robot + Tenticle Pr0n = An unhappy nerd + pr0n
As we all know, this is a logical fallacy, since a nerd with pr0n is never unhappy.
I figured, if you were going to posit that ax + ay = axy, I might as well take the fuzzy math a little farther.
"Even without that, do you have any idea what Mattel would *do* to the guy?"
Mattel and Jack would get along fine, I think.
Though it wouldn't surprise me at all if Mattel did whatever necessary to protect their $$.
"Nasty, dirty, horrible things. And that ho Barbie likes it. Poor Ken."
Poor Ken? Barbie's just his beard, he's probably more upset that he doesn't get more action from the GI Joes.
2K Games is a label of Take 2 Interactive. It was formed in 2004 when Take 2 bought 2K Sports, along with a bunch of other studios.
No, the point is that without intervention into the system (say, by developing a currently unsuited species) the evolution concept doesn't work to maximum benefit.
My point was that without development of unsuited species now, then they won't be there later. The entire dev line, gone, because the past iterations were unsuitable to the market at that time -- we've lost a lot of potential.
It's a little different with biological evolution, since extinction doesn't truly exist in tech development. But by ignoring other dev branches because we fail to appreciate their potential, as in the OP in this thread, may mean that we end up with fewer viable alternatives, and therefore the JGE solution may not be as good as if we had full-fledged competitors from different dev lines.
It doesn't even look like a real nude woman[1], it's not even close to anatomically correct. It's less realistic than a Barbie doll with the clothes stripped off. Last time I checked, Barbie dolls didn't have an 'M' rating -- they didn't have a rating at all!
:)
[1] Or like the pictures and videos we've all seen, for those of us who lack a basis for comparison
"So, let's all agree with Andy, then go on using the best tools for our purposes."
That's looking at it from an end-user standpoint. The problem with that view is that the better method will never become viable.
To extend your evolution metaphor, you're limiting yourself to a subset of the genepool. Sure, a species that has already been selected for / adapted to that particular niche would outcompete *now* in that niche; but that does not mean that another species allowed to adapt to that niche wouldn' out-compete the one that's already there -- especially should conditions change in that niche (as constantly happens with technology).
To give a biological example, look at the large animals of the Americas. They evolved to fill niches in the absence of humans. Once humans came over, they were all killed off or died out most likely as a result of human interference -- they hadn't the traits to survive in the new niche (with the exception of the buffalo). Yet big animals in Africa survived alongside human hunters -- they would have been better suited to the 'new' American niche.
My point is that just because something has the most developed tools for the job *now* doesn't mean that it's lineal successors would be the best tool for the job *later*. Who knows what we're missing if we limit ourselves to the current development lines?