You're absolutely right. I'll need a sauna, two bottles of whiskey, and Natalie Portman wearing the new topless bikini sans bottoms to mitigate those chilling effects.
While politeness may be a useful social lubricant, engendering mental dichotomy on such a scale is simply begging for errors in communication. Perhaps it has "always" been that way, but must it be?
If you're that concerned about attackers, you shouldn't be carrying a laptop you aren't willing to dispose of/have stolen into a hostile environment. You can purchase a full blown Thinkpad refurb for $200.
Technology for sewer monitoring is incredibly difficult. Active componentry, and even passive componentry tends to fail at an alarming rate due to being immersed in a chemical soup of practically arbitrary composition.
I think you will find that the courts frown upon booby traps, the argument being that they fail to differentiate between lawful intruders (police, et al) and unlawful intruders (burglers). However, that argument also assumes your booby trap isn't sentient and intelligent enough to differentiate. As far as I know, no one has ever tried a case with a sentient booby trap, yet.
Replying to myself to clarify something I realized in retrospect. We don't go further to simply avoid packaging--this store sells only generic items with minimal packaging, at a fraction of the retail cost of brand names. It means that our grocery bill, even after gas, is approximately 1/3 of what it would be otherwise.
As a child, my parents and I always walked to the store. We bought a little wire-mesh cart with wheels. Problem solved. These days, the grocery store with the least packaging is far enough to make walking infeasible, so the SO and I drive, but we still re-use the same bags (they are not free at our grocery store, but they are cloth and quite durable).
You *have* to run Debian Unstable? I comfortably run Debian Testing with security updates from Stable, so that my system doesn't get accidentally forced into version mismatches--it's self-correcting when Testing again has a newer version. This tends to happen most often involving things like Iceweasel, but that's not the only package.
What if you get stuck with a toaster who really really just wants to make you some toast? Perhaps even a briefly hyperintelligent toaster...;)
What, no Red Dwarf fans?
But following that up by saying you want to protect existing agreements seems to imply to me: We're going to keep spying on you and blackmailing you, but we're going to hide it better, promise!
Clearly, you're talking out of your ass. Those are not proper scientific controls, and they do not control for the interaction between two arbitrary people. Perhaps you should read The Lie Behind The Lie Detector.
I think you overestimate the number of people on this planet qualified to develop new cryptographic algorithms and analyze them properly. Implementation is vastly simpler, and a skilled programmer with a basic knowledge of crypto and physics can produce a reasonably secure implementation for most common uses. Dealing with every possible side-channel attack in the design of the algorithm is another ballgame.
No. It's not a riduculous idea. The fact is, the polygraph is, by itself, unscientific (lack of proper control). However, if we ignore its stated purpose, and look at what it's actually used for (a stick, to induce fear), then it makes much more sense. Persons outside of intelligence services are unlikely to be aware of this and they will believe that the machine has magical divinatory powers, when it fact it's an ages old interrogation tactic. "We know something about you! Now spill."
It's a lovely ideal, but human nature being what it is (the enumeration of all possibilities, given enough time), I seriously doubt it's in the near future.
The idea that nobody entrusted him with the power to set American foreign policy is BS. We gave him physical access to the necessary files and that is physically equivalent to the power. The idea of a Byzantine failure (see the Byzantine Generals' Problem) is not a new one. The real takeaway here is that if you don't want to entrust someone with that sort of power, you need much much stronger safeguards than were in place. Anything else is simply denying the reality of it.
If I hand you an encrypted file, but it's encrypted with ROT13, and I tell you that it's encrypted with some ROT cipher, and then I say that I didn't give you the power to decrypt it, that's just a bit disingenuous. Denying physics is not a productive game.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely right. I'll need a sauna, two bottles of whiskey, and Natalie Portman wearing the new topless bikini sans bottoms to mitigate those chilling effects.
Found the shill! Do I get a prize?
While politeness may be a useful social lubricant, engendering mental dichotomy on such a scale is simply begging for errors in communication. Perhaps it has "always" been that way, but must it be?
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
If you're that concerned about attackers, you shouldn't be carrying a laptop you aren't willing to dispose of/have stolen into a hostile environment. You can purchase a full blown Thinkpad refurb for $200.
Schneier said that it wasn't technically surprising.
Had I mod points, I would mod this +1 Insightful, but, as I don't (and I've posted), I'll settle for bumping this.
Technology for sewer monitoring is incredibly difficult. Active componentry, and even passive componentry tends to fail at an alarming rate due to being immersed in a chemical soup of practically arbitrary composition.
I think you will find that the courts frown upon booby traps, the argument being that they fail to differentiate between lawful intruders (police, et al) and unlawful intruders (burglers). However, that argument also assumes your booby trap isn't sentient and intelligent enough to differentiate. As far as I know, no one has ever tried a case with a sentient booby trap, yet.
True, but if you stop actively participating in social media, you may find that most of your "friends" forget you ever existed.
Replying to myself to clarify something I realized in retrospect. We don't go further to simply avoid packaging--this store sells only generic items with minimal packaging, at a fraction of the retail cost of brand names. It means that our grocery bill, even after gas, is approximately 1/3 of what it would be otherwise.
As a child, my parents and I always walked to the store. We bought a little wire-mesh cart with wheels. Problem solved. These days, the grocery store with the least packaging is far enough to make walking infeasible, so the SO and I drive, but we still re-use the same bags (they are not free at our grocery store, but they are cloth and quite durable).
All the way down.
Moving your eyes like a sucker? Are you some sort of cephalopod?
This is the problem with "one size fits all". It winds up not fitting anyone well.
You *have* to run Debian Unstable? I comfortably run Debian Testing with security updates from Stable, so that my system doesn't get accidentally forced into version mismatches--it's self-correcting when Testing again has a newer version. This tends to happen most often involving things like Iceweasel, but that's not the only package.
What if you get stuck with a toaster who really really just wants to make you some toast? Perhaps even a briefly hyperintelligent toaster... ;)
What, no Red Dwarf fans?
But following that up by saying you want to protect existing agreements seems to imply to me: We're going to keep spying on you and blackmailing you, but we're going to hide it better, promise!
Same shit, different day.
Clearly, you're talking out of your ass. Those are not proper scientific controls, and they do not control for the interaction between two arbitrary people. Perhaps you should read The Lie Behind The Lie Detector.
I think you overestimate the number of people on this planet qualified to develop new cryptographic algorithms and analyze them properly. Implementation is vastly simpler, and a skilled programmer with a basic knowledge of crypto and physics can produce a reasonably secure implementation for most common uses. Dealing with every possible side-channel attack in the design of the algorithm is another ballgame.
No. It's not a riduculous idea. The fact is, the polygraph is, by itself, unscientific (lack of proper control). However, if we ignore its stated purpose, and look at what it's actually used for (a stick, to induce fear), then it makes much more sense. Persons outside of intelligence services are unlikely to be aware of this and they will believe that the machine has magical divinatory powers, when it fact it's an ages old interrogation tactic. "We know something about you! Now spill."
It's a lovely ideal, but human nature being what it is (the enumeration of all possibilities, given enough time), I seriously doubt it's in the near future.
The idea that nobody entrusted him with the power to set American foreign policy is BS. We gave him physical access to the necessary files and that is physically equivalent to the power. The idea of a Byzantine failure (see the Byzantine Generals' Problem) is not a new one. The real takeaway here is that if you don't want to entrust someone with that sort of power, you need much much stronger safeguards than were in place. Anything else is simply denying the reality of it.
If I hand you an encrypted file, but it's encrypted with ROT13, and I tell you that it's encrypted with some ROT cipher, and then I say that I didn't give you the power to decrypt it, that's just a bit disingenuous. Denying physics is not a productive game.
I came to the same conclusion as you, based on Schneier's clueless agent.
This was exactly my idea based on Schneier's clueless agent.