The amount of spin applied to the article is incredible. It reads like a propaganda piece designed to have snippets quoted out of context. Good soundbites.
In NSA-intercepted data, those not targeted far outnumber the foreigners who are
Which appears to imply that we only target foreigners... Since Americans are "untargeted" they don't deserve a mention.
At one level, the NSA shows scrupulous care in protecting the privacy of U.S. nationals and, by policy, those of its four closest intelligence allies — Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
And then they never balance out that "At one level" until three paragraphs later.
Then, they spend most of the article on a fucking fluff piece about the content of some romantic messages. What the fuck is this shit?
PR spin piece, through and through. They managed to ruin an actual news story.
I've used my tools to open my own vehicle and had the police stop to check it out. A quick explanation, hand over my ID, and they go on their way. Not a hassle at all. Same thing for friends. If they lock their keys in the vehicle, I can open it, with them present, and prepared to give the ID to the cops to prove ownership.
The reality is that around here, you're not getting charged with possession of burglarious instruments unless you're misusing them. Being able to quickly open your own vehicle or that of a friend, instead of waiting for AAA, is really useful. You should also check out locksport--TOOOL is active in Mass. and there are other smaller locksport meetups.
Bullshit. Locksmithing tools are state by state. In MA, I can, and do, freely carry lockpicks, no license required. Now fuck off and die, you idiot. Or at least, don't spread false BS.
The dimensionality of the object can be higher than the degrees of freedom. For reference by analogy, see gimbals, which allow representation of arbitrary axes in n-dimensions, but are subject to gimbal lock, where a change in one axis may be represented by a substitution of a change in another axis, eliminating a degree of freedom (not to be confused with dimension).
The temptation to optimize for speed/memory usage over producing correct code is like will'o'the'wisps for many developers. If you develop code for a hostile environment (the default assumption for crypto) it should be assumed that any inputs will be abused.
Further, in a hostile environment, developers also need to assume that they won't have anticipated every possible way to extract information from a process. Do the simplest thing that will always work, within the limits you can predict. Then fix the bugs as you find them, because you WILL have some. Hopefully, you have a qualified set of eyes willing to review your code.
For example, timing attacks are pervasive in cryptography, and incredibly easy to enable without very thorough consideration of possible paths. Often, with higher-level languages, you have little opportunity to mitigate these issues. You check bounds because it's the low-hanging fruit for an attacker, not because it will provide absolute security. It merely raises the bar for an attacker. Crypto is often subject to attacks enabled via multiple layers of abstraction (all the way down to turtles) which obscure potential problem areas.
That 2 TB of key material has to be stored somewhere, and can't ever be reused. Is your data storage coercion-proof? Also, how much do you like sneaker-net? At that point, you might be better off not committing things to paper.
Any predictive observations will necessarily be limited by the actual applicability of the model. A model may suggest directions to look for interesting phenomena, but it is NEVER confirmation of such. Simulations will only get you as far as your inputs. GIGO.
So, you're saying that the rules of production are axioms too. Still doesn't change what I said. But, you do arrive at the same endpoint that I arrived at, which is that if you don't accept some of them at some point, you'll wind up back at my original point.
otherwise you'd be arguing with solipsists over every detail, no matter how blindingly "obvious"
That's just revisionism (they tried awfully hard not to let go); the correct parallel is Aesop's The Fox and the Grapes.
One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour."
"A poof is a poof. What kind of a poof? It's a poof. A poof is a poof. And when you have a good poof, it's because it's poofin'."
Jean B. Tokin, former Prime Minister of CanIHitThat
Proof is absolute, within the confines of the accepted axioms. Within the larger scope of things, we accept proof probabilistically, and this includes the entire works of every mathematician ever to live. Bayesian stats attempts to capture this idea that knowledge is never absolute, but merely held with probabilistic certainty, and all things are based on axioms (inherently unprovable, but assumed to be useful) ultimately. I only gripe (and boy is it a really fine, pedantic gripe), because your comment commits the same error you attack. Math/logic is a model, not reality. Models are based on necessary assumptions (axioms), otherwise you'd be arguing with solipsists over every detail, no matter how blindingly "obvious". This trend toward claiming that a mathematical proof or a scientific theory is "absolute" violates the very premise on which they're based.
As you said, American Law Firm. You keep saying it, but I'm not sure how you keep missing it.
Are you trying to suggest that spying on Americans is okay? And that we should violate the attorney-client privilege of those Americans, which exists both here and in Indonesia?
The practical extent to science cannot be underestimated.
Sure I can. "Science is useless for doing anything practical." Well, that was easy. Oh, you meant overestimated.;) Or did you mean should not? This is similar to people saying, "I could care less," when they really mean, "I couldn't care less."</pedantic>
I'm not talking about the spying on journalists in the US which is illegal but about this particular incident here and others like it.
Quote from TFH: "NSA Ally Spied on US Law Firm".
Quote from the fine OP of this thread: "NSA to violate the 4th Amendment rights of 300 million Americans"
Quote from the fine title of this thread: "War on American Citizens"
Way to move the goalposts! Like, overseas! We're discussing spying on AMERICANS here. This "particular incident" involves AMERICANS. How do you not get that? We WEREN'T talking about spying on the communications of foreigners.
That was a marvelous non-refutation of the AC.;)
The damage done to the core of our society is out of proportion to any potential safety benefits we might have seen. Say, you don't happen to have a citation on how many terrorist plots have been foiled in the US, do you? And at a cost of what, versus what amount of damage, in USD is fine, thanks. Until you can show some use for all this, you take it on faith that it benefits you.
Jules: What does Marsellus Wallace look like?
Brett: What?
Jules: What country are you from?
Brett: What? What? Wh - ?
Jules: "What" ain't no country I've ever heard of. They speak English in What?
Brett: What?
Jules: English, motherfucker, do you speak it?!
Slashdot Mirror
You're agreeing with me. Note how I put "untargeted" in quotes...
We have two? I only see one from here...
The amount of spin applied to the article is incredible. It reads like a propaganda piece designed to have snippets quoted out of context. Good soundbites.
In NSA-intercepted data, those not targeted far outnumber the foreigners who are
Which appears to imply that we only target foreigners... Since Americans are "untargeted" they don't deserve a mention.
At one level, the NSA shows scrupulous care in protecting the privacy of U.S. nationals and, by policy, those of its four closest intelligence allies — Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
And then they never balance out that "At one level" until three paragraphs later.
Then, they spend most of the article on a fucking fluff piece about the content of some romantic messages. What the fuck is this shit?
PR spin piece, through and through. They managed to ruin an actual news story.
I've used my tools to open my own vehicle and had the police stop to check it out. A quick explanation, hand over my ID, and they go on their way. Not a hassle at all. Same thing for friends. If they lock their keys in the vehicle, I can open it, with them present, and prepared to give the ID to the cops to prove ownership.
The reality is that around here, you're not getting charged with possession of burglarious instruments unless you're misusing them. Being able to quickly open your own vehicle or that of a friend, instead of waiting for AAA, is really useful. You should also check out locksport--TOOOL is active in Mass. and there are other smaller locksport meetups.
Bullshit. Locksmithing tools are state by state. In MA, I can, and do, freely carry lockpicks, no license required. Now fuck off and die, you idiot. Or at least, don't spread false BS.
I wish I had mod points for this one. +1 Interesting/Insightful.
New England is right out.
The dimensionality of the object can be higher than the degrees of freedom. For reference by analogy, see gimbals, which allow representation of arbitrary axes in n-dimensions, but are subject to gimbal lock, where a change in one axis may be represented by a substitution of a change in another axis, eliminating a degree of freedom (not to be confused with dimension).
The temptation to optimize for speed/memory usage over producing correct code is like will'o'the'wisps for many developers. If you develop code for a hostile environment (the default assumption for crypto) it should be assumed that any inputs will be abused.
Further, in a hostile environment, developers also need to assume that they won't have anticipated every possible way to extract information from a process. Do the simplest thing that will always work, within the limits you can predict. Then fix the bugs as you find them, because you WILL have some. Hopefully, you have a qualified set of eyes willing to review your code.
For example, timing attacks are pervasive in cryptography, and incredibly easy to enable without very thorough consideration of possible paths. Often, with higher-level languages, you have little opportunity to mitigate these issues. You check bounds because it's the low-hanging fruit for an attacker, not because it will provide absolute security. It merely raises the bar for an attacker. Crypto is often subject to attacks enabled via multiple layers of abstraction (all the way down to turtles) which obscure potential problem areas.
That 2 TB of key material has to be stored somewhere, and can't ever be reused. Is your data storage coercion-proof? Also, how much do you like sneaker-net? At that point, you might be better off not committing things to paper.
Any predictive observations will necessarily be limited by the actual applicability of the model. A model may suggest directions to look for interesting phenomena, but it is NEVER confirmation of such. Simulations will only get you as far as your inputs. GIGO.
It's intended to degauss the glasshole, not the glass. ;)
otherwise you'd be arguing with solipsists over every detail, no matter how blindingly "obvious"
Anything new to add?
Don't mention this to the Aussies.
One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour."
"A poof is a poof. What kind of a poof? It's a poof. A poof is a poof. And when you have a good poof, it's because it's poofin'." Jean B. Tokin, former Prime Minister of CanIHitThat
If the algorithm can be proved correct (within whatever axiomatic system you're using) then it's correct. The End.
Thank you. For the love of FSM, thank you for qualifying your statement about proof.
Proof is absolute, within the confines of the accepted axioms. Within the larger scope of things, we accept proof probabilistically, and this includes the entire works of every mathematician ever to live. Bayesian stats attempts to capture this idea that knowledge is never absolute, but merely held with probabilistic certainty, and all things are based on axioms (inherently unprovable, but assumed to be useful) ultimately. I only gripe (and boy is it a really fine, pedantic gripe), because your comment commits the same error you attack. Math/logic is a model, not reality. Models are based on necessary assumptions (axioms), otherwise you'd be arguing with solipsists over every detail, no matter how blindingly "obvious". This trend toward claiming that a mathematical proof or a scientific theory is "absolute" violates the very premise on which they're based.
As you said, American Law Firm. You keep saying it, but I'm not sure how you keep missing it.
Are you trying to suggest that spying on Americans is okay? And that we should violate the attorney-client privilege of those Americans, which exists both here and in Indonesia?
The practical extent to science cannot be underestimated.
Sure I can. "Science is useless for doing anything practical." Well, that was easy. Oh, you meant overestimated. ;) Or did you mean should not? This is similar to people saying, "I could care less," when they really mean, "I couldn't care less."</pedantic>
e^(i*(1/2)*2*piiiii)-(0.19915)=0.80085
What now, Mr. Pimp?
I'm not talking about the spying on journalists in the US which is illegal but about this particular incident here and others like it.
Quote from TFH: "NSA Ally Spied on US Law Firm".
Quote from the fine OP of this thread: "NSA to violate the 4th Amendment rights of 300 million Americans"
Quote from the fine title of this thread: "War on American Citizens"
Way to move the goalposts! Like, overseas! We're discussing spying on AMERICANS here. This "particular incident" involves AMERICANS. How do you not get that? We WEREN'T talking about spying on the communications of foreigners.
That was a marvelous non-refutation of the AC. ;)
The damage done to the core of our society is out of proportion to any potential safety benefits we might have seen. Say, you don't happen to have a citation on how many terrorist plots have been foiled in the US, do you? And at a cost of what, versus what amount of damage, in USD is fine, thanks. Until you can show some use for all this, you take it on faith that it benefits you.
Not sure we will want to call it software anymore at that point.
Skynet.
Jules: What does Marsellus Wallace look like?
Brett: What?
Jules: What country are you from?
Brett: What? What? Wh - ?
Jules: "What" ain't no country I've ever heard of. They speak English in What?
Brett: What?
Jules: English, motherfucker, do you speak it?!