I did a little more reading, and I may have overstated... as it was only one or two courts interpretation; however, it is not bullshit either. It's apparently not a "settled" issue.
Point out the page on which "Dummies Guide to American Government" says that the President can order warrantless spying on Americans.
Didn't the [Truong] court decide that the president had Constitutional authority to do these sorts of things, if they were under "National Security"? Constitution trumps law...
Name another time that the President has ordered warrantless spying on Americans.
Ford and Clinton in recent history
To appreciate direct and unabashed violation of the Fourth Amendment? I'm afraid it will take a lot more than that for me to appreciate it.
I don't remember where exactly, but I believe the Supreme Court (in a Truong related brief) stated explicitly the president could override 4th ammendment privileges in the case of a National Security issue.
Don't like it? Start doing what is provided for in the Constitution... contact your representatives, and get them to work on an Ammendment. (Bush isn't as popular as some folks think, and he won't be around next term)
Eep
There are different approaches to solving a problem that need to be understood before you can even begin to apply a language to it.
Are you going to approach it in a functional sense? OO? Procedural? Hybrid? Lambda?
It sounds like you're showing them something in one method, and then teaching a different method... seems a little confusing to me.
Though one of the more interesting classes I took was a study in languages, in which we took a language from each of the major paradigms (they were C, LISP, Prolog, and something else I can't remember), and did the same three projects in each of them. It extremely painful, but really fun... Doing something AI-ish in C, doing something functional in Prolog, etc... really drove home the differences between conceptual approaches.
>>The Foreign Power is not a person, it refers to organizations. The "Agent of Foreign Power" is an individual. Correct
>> By FISA definition, US Citizen cannot be an "Agent of Foreign Power". Correct again.
>> FISA even goes further by saying that any organization comprised mainly of US Citizen CANNOT be labeled "Foreign Power". Correct yet again.
>>You just have to read the whole thing, not just the first paragraph... Hit the nail on the head so far.
Take a peek at 1802 (a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) which states which definition to use for applying FISA rules. It says to use the definition of "Foreign Power", not "Agent of foreign power" Now, along this line of reasoning, you would have to assert that Al Qaeda (which is the group I'm picking on at the moment), has more operatives in the US than it does outside the US... and I have hard time believing that.
So, we have a group which is comprised of mostly foreign people, for which there is an argument that people on our soil are also involved. Further it isn't hard to assume that people who call Al Qaeda private numbers are members, and not citizens.
I'm guessing this would be a good enough link.
However, it still doesn't answer the court's opinion that the President was acting within his Constitutional authority, overriding law.
(I'll tell you what though, I have learned alot so far reading through all this...)
>> If you are tapping communication to/from US, if any party is unknown, that any reasonable person would agree that there is SUBSTANTIAL likelyhood that it involves a citizen.
They could use the theory that if you are calling a private Al Qaeda number, then you are likely affiliated with them. If you are affiliated with them, you are probably not a legal citizen, etc. It doesn't guarantee you aren't... but it is in interesting (if disturbing) connection. I'd hate to accidentally dial one of the numbers =-/
I've found that "reasonable person" in court scenarios cn be a little wacky. We would need to know what was actually targetted to get a better idea of theory/intent, I think.
>>And if you do inadvertantly tap US citizen's communications, you HAVE to get the warrant (even if it is after the fact). That is what section 1805 is all about.
Where does it actually say that? I'm getting lost in alot of the cross referencing.
>> And did you read the definitions? Section 1801? It CLEARLY states that FISA DOES NOT cover US citizens (and legal aliens)
I did read it.
The part you refer to is "Agent of a foreign power", not "foreign power"
1802 (a)(1)(A)(i) states explicitly "as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3)", not 1801 (b), so CLEARLY it does cover the possibility of including some United States Persons.
Anyway, this still doesn't address the court's opinion that it is a constitutional authority of the president, which would exeed legal authority by definition.
Definition of foreign powers as applies to this part:
(a) "Foreign power" means--
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(a)(2) says "not subtantially compused of United States persons"... which tells me that they are explicitly allowing for "some" citizens to be involved. Al Qaeda would definitely qualify as this faction, and it isn't hard to imagine that poeple calling Al Qaeda numbers are affiliated with it.
It doesn't look ambiguous to me... it looks like it hangs on details...
Also nots, that (a)(4) has no restrictions on memberships at all, so FISA does cover Citizens pretty well... but in this instance (4) doesn't apply because it wasn't explicitly listed. However (a)(2) still applies.
Sorry... accidentally clicked submit rather than preview...
>>The both case you refer to clearly states that while search without warrant is valid when non-citizens are involved, it is not valid if citizens are. >>How could that be twisted to say that Bush's executive order is technically legal?
It's not twisting the law or the court opinion at all.
I think you are missing something now.
The law doesn't say it's invalid if if citizens are affected. It says you can't take advantage of it if there is a reasonable chance it will capture citizens' (and other legal residents) conversations.
If they are targetting phones that communicate with known (or believed to be known) terrorist cells, it really doesn't stretch the imagination to believe that they are not likely citizens (or here legally in some other fashion).
>> And your argument about the person on the other end of the phone is exactly why FISA made it SO easy to obtain warrants
From what I can tell, that doesn't really matter in a technical sense.
The court seemed to say the President had the constitutional authority to do so.
The constitution trumps the law... so if we don't like that ability, we need to work towards a constitutional ammendment to fix whatever it was in the Constitution that the court believed gave the president that authority.
>>The both case you refer to clearly states that while search without warrant is valid when non-citizens are involved, it is not valid if citizens are.
>>How could that be twisted to say that Bush's executive order is technically legal?
It's not twisting the law or the court opinion at all.
I think you are missing something now. The law doesn't say it's invalid if if citizens are affected. It says you can't take advantage of it if there is a reasonable chance it will capture citizens' (and other legal residents) conversations.
If they are targetting phones that communicate with known (or believed to be known) terrorist cells, it really doesn't stretch the imagination to believe that they are not likely citizens (or here legally in some other fashion).
>> And your argument about the person on the other end of the phone is exactly why FISA made it SO easy to obtain warrants
From what I can tell, that doesn't really matter in a technical sense. The court seemed to say the President had the constitutional authority to do so. The constitution trumps the law... so if we don't like that ability, we need to work towards a constitutional ammendment to fix whatever it was in the Constitution that the court believed gave the president that authority.
How does United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 915-16 (4th Cir. 1980) ("[T]he executive should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons.") fit in? That case pretty much says, that since the president is specifically doing something "National Security" related, which is his job, he is excused from 4th ammendment protections. (spooky, yes; but that seems to me how the case reads)
Also, yes, Title 50, Section 1802, (a)(1)(B) does specifically require that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States Person is a party"...
... but do we know enough about what was targeted to say that wasn't the case? Were they tapping any phone that communicated with known Al Qaeda phones or something?
In that case, there could be a reasonable (in a court sense, not necessarily in real life) argument that the person on the other end of the phone isn't like to be be a "United States Person"... and thus what he did was legal. (And what presidents before him as well)
I just don't know enough yet about what was target to say one way or another for that one.
This is one of those that will go down to details, and we just don't have enough of them "yet". I really hope we get to see some soon though.
The deeper I get into the details, the more it looks like he was technically legal. It doesn't smell quite right to me, so I need to decide whether I want to take action to make it specifially illegal, but that's a different argument.
Its funny. Flying a place can be more complicated that driving a car, and guess what the instructors do to you?
Instructor Says: "Take us to 4,500 feet, then turn to heading 270, make sure to avoid breaking that airspace, and when you get over the test area take us into MCA flight. Now: If we lost an engine where would we land? Good, Now, where are we?"
Instructor Does: "Open the map covering instruments and asks you to point out where we are"
Later the instructor has to actively try do distract you with things irrelevant to flying.
Let's do something like that for driving too.
Or conversely... lets start penalizing for stupid behavior... get a national standard set for tailgaiting, publicize it for awhile, and then start zapping people.
Oh, were you on a cell phone? Agravating factor! Double charge.
I wonder how much trouble all the teens who include lyrics in their MySpace profiles and such will have?
Kid: I love this song... look at the lyrics... aren't they great!
Industry: Stop in the name of love
Kid: Hey, that's a lyric too, you have to sue yourselves!
Industry: Oh, I hadn't thought of that... <vanishes in a puff of logic>
Yes and no... from one side, its related one of the reasons why my current company has a policy against air travel for more than a few team employees at a time. Plane goes down -> project is hosed. This is the raw risk management side.
That has to be balanced with the "replaceable cog" issue. People are humans, not just "resources" to be allocated.
It's not that you are replacable, its that most of what you have done or learned that is significant should not have to be re-learned.
If I had everything of mine docuemented well, my company would still hurt when I left... for two reasons.
1. I'm familiar with the stuff, so I don't need to digest my documents.
2. More importantly, I can generate all these things faster than most other people could. In the case of the company I came back to work for, then replaced me with 2 other people who still couldn't keep up with the new demands. But they were able to keep the ship running in the mean time.
To follow the metaphor, they could plug a different cog in, and the machine keeps running, but might need some more maintenance, cost more, weight more, require a different form of lubrication, etc... (or less, depending on how arrogant I am =-) )
If it was a company of any real size, and there was a need for you to stay to the last minute like that, your manager needs to be replaced. That manager is allowing undue risk to the company to exist.
You cannot stake the company's ability to continue to business on the risk that you aren't going to get killed in some nasty accident.
I've left companies before and had it both ways. In fact, when I had to leave on my notice-day, I actually still stayed in contact with the employers, and, ended up working for them again later.
>I have no idea why Suse 8.0 was selected (not my first or second choice, by the way).
Did you read the study? Or even his response? I really can't tell from your response.
I can't guess what sort of problems you have with the choice, because you chose to give us no information beyond "It stinks". Was your problem with Suse at all, or why they chose 8.0 instead of 9.0? Where is your problem?
"The period we looked at was July 1st, 2004 to June 30th, 2005" Out of curiosity, what were your top choices as of July 1st, 2004 for an enterprise level solution? (ie, something breaks you can yell at the vendor...)
>The study was funded and conducted for the sole purpose of finding a favorable result for Microsoft and that is exactly what it did.
Thank you for the clear description of how you reached that conclusion given the evidence. With such transparency in thinking you should really get into doing studies for profit as well! I can definitely see how you would be able to wade through several people's complex decisions, describing each one perfectly in all detail for every possible reader in addition to choosing people who would have through processes and environmental experience that exactly matches all the readers as well.
I'm not saying to cut the study any slack at all... I'm saying that just because you happen to believe in the prevailing theories of this group here, doesn't mean you can just say "Me too!" and expect everyone to think you're smart. (Did my AOL and MS references make it through?)
Am I smart? I really try not to be... someone might actually ask me to write something useful, and then I'd really be done for.
Following your logic, turning off auto-play for CDs on Windows wouldn't be a security measure then either, because if you manually run the autorun, then you are just as vulnerable. You work for Sony, right?
A door isn't a security measure on my house because when I unlock it, someone can get in?
Having a stateful firewall is not a security measure? Well, it can't be... because if you open ports on that, or setup a DMZ, then you're just as vulnerable.
Oh, yeah... packet filters, that's right. That's the security answer. Unless, of course, you misconfigure an incoming rule for a port you want to make available to the outside world... then you're just as vulnerable.
You say NAT isn't a security measure because if you open up a port you are just as vulnerable. That is rubbish =-)
Repeat after me: "NAT can be a very good security measure" NAT by itself is not always the security solution, but NAT, as commonly implemented, is a very good measure.
Correct, but...
My machine really has nothing on it worth compromising. All data like that is on a server that is physically secured.
I SSH/RDC/Dameware into to the servers. There is one firewalled one that actually has an MS Office installation, etc...
The IT version of those cool plastic boxes with the gloves that scientists use...
It's a legitimate concern in general, but we just don't know enough in specific
We had a building restack awhile back, and they wanted to bump our group into cubes. I ended up going to the Real Estate folks at HQ and letting them know that my screen would now be facing public walkways, and communications about acquisitions would be ripe for compromise. (I kinda wish we had the SOX issues back then... since I deal with private info as well, it becomes a legal issue.)
Fortunately for me, Facilities didn't want to get those goofy cubicle sliding doors, and we didn't have enough conference room space for me to be able to reserve a conference room for all my confidential meetings.
Then again, at another of our offices, all of us are in cubes, but our bank of cubes is behind a secure access controlled door, and the general users aren't allowed in there... All depends on how critical your info is, and what is available to protect it.
I wouldn't press the sube issue directly, I would press the security issue, and let management come up with their own answer.
I regularly run a script which interrogates all of our Active Directory Domain Controllers simultneously, and my poor machine comes grinding down... (>50 ldapsearches at once)
I have to run as root or I run out of processes
I go for a walk while it runs, because my Dual-gig machine is nearly unusable while the script is running.
Slashdot Mirror
I did a little more reading, and I may have overstated... as it was only one or two courts interpretation; however, it is not bullshit either. It's apparently not a "settled" issue.
m endment04/05.html#t156
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/a
Scroll down to footnote 156, and check out that attached cases.
Point out the page on which "Dummies Guide to American Government" says that the President can order warrantless spying on Americans.
Didn't the [Truong] court decide that the president had Constitutional authority to do these sorts of things, if they were under "National Security"? Constitution trumps law...
Name another time that the President has ordered warrantless spying on Americans.
Ford and Clinton in recent history
To appreciate direct and unabashed violation of the Fourth Amendment? I'm afraid it will take a lot more than that for me to appreciate it.
I don't remember where exactly, but I believe the Supreme Court (in a Truong related brief) stated explicitly the president could override 4th ammendment privileges in the case of a National Security issue.
Don't like it? Start doing what is provided for in the Constitution... contact your representatives, and get them to work on an Ammendment. (Bush isn't as popular as some folks think, and he won't be around next term)
Eep There are different approaches to solving a problem that need to be understood before you can even begin to apply a language to it. Are you going to approach it in a functional sense? OO? Procedural? Hybrid? Lambda? It sounds like you're showing them something in one method, and then teaching a different method... seems a little confusing to me. Though one of the more interesting classes I took was a study in languages, in which we took a language from each of the major paradigms (they were C, LISP, Prolog, and something else I can't remember), and did the same three projects in each of them. It extremely painful, but really fun... Doing something AI-ish in C, doing something functional in Prolog, etc... really drove home the differences between conceptual approaches.
>>The Foreign Power is not a person, it refers to organizations. The "Agent of Foreign Power" is an individual.
Correct
>> By FISA definition, US Citizen cannot be an "Agent of Foreign Power".
Correct again.
>> FISA even goes further by saying that any organization comprised mainly of US Citizen CANNOT be labeled "Foreign Power".
Correct yet again.
>>You just have to read the whole thing, not just the first paragraph...
Hit the nail on the head so far.
Take a peek at 1802 (a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) which states which definition to use for applying FISA rules.
It says to use the definition of "Foreign Power", not "Agent of foreign power"
Now, along this line of reasoning, you would have to assert that Al Qaeda (which is the group I'm picking on at the moment), has more operatives in the US than it does outside the US... and I have hard time believing that.
So, we have a group which is comprised of mostly foreign people, for which there is an argument that people on our soil are also involved. Further it isn't hard to assume that people who call Al Qaeda private numbers are members, and not citizens.
I'm guessing this would be a good enough link.
However, it still doesn't answer the court's opinion that the President was acting within his Constitutional authority, overriding law.
(I'll tell you what though, I have learned alot so far reading through all this...)
>> If you are tapping communication to/from US, if any party is unknown, that any reasonable person would agree that there is SUBSTANTIAL likelyhood that it involves a citizen.
They could use the theory that if you are calling a private Al Qaeda number, then you are likely affiliated with them. If you are affiliated with them, you are probably not a legal citizen, etc. It doesn't guarantee you aren't... but it is in interesting (if disturbing) connection. I'd hate to accidentally dial one of the numbers =-/
I've found that "reasonable person" in court scenarios cn be a little wacky. We would need to know what was actually targetted to get a better idea of theory/intent, I think.
>>And if you do inadvertantly tap US citizen's communications, you HAVE to get the warrant (even if it is after the fact). That is what section 1805 is all about.
Where does it actually say that? I'm getting lost in alot of the cross referencing.
>> And did you read the definitions? Section 1801? It CLEARLY states that FISA DOES NOT cover US citizens (and legal aliens)
I did read it.
The part you refer to is "Agent of a foreign power", not "foreign power"
1802 (a)(1)(A)(i) states explicitly "as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3)", not 1801 (b), so CLEARLY it does cover the possibility of including some United States Persons.
Anyway, this still doesn't address the court's opinion that it is a constitutional authority of the president, which would exeed legal authority by definition.
If we don't like it, we need to ammend it.
>> authority to spy on FOREIGN POWERS
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/us c_sec_50_00001801----000-.html
Definition of foreign powers as applies to this part:
(a) "Foreign power" means--
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(a)(2) says "not subtantially compused of United States persons"... which tells me that they are explicitly allowing for "some" citizens to be involved. Al Qaeda would definitely qualify as this faction, and it isn't hard to imagine that poeple calling Al Qaeda numbers are affiliated with it.
It doesn't look ambiguous to me... it looks like it hangs on details...
Also nots, that (a)(4) has no restrictions on memberships at all, so FISA does cover Citizens pretty well... but in this instance (4) doesn't apply because it wasn't explicitly listed. However (a)(2) still applies.
Anyone know how I can delete my above post? I clicked the wrong button
Sorry... accidentally clicked submit rather than preview...
>>The both case you refer to clearly states that while search without warrant is valid when non-citizens are involved, it is not valid if citizens are.
>>How could that be twisted to say that Bush's executive order is technically legal?
It's not twisting the law or the court opinion at all.
I think you are missing something now.
The law doesn't say it's invalid if if citizens are affected. It says you can't take advantage of it if there is a reasonable chance it will capture citizens' (and other legal residents) conversations.
If they are targetting phones that communicate with known (or believed to be known) terrorist cells, it really doesn't stretch the imagination to believe that they are not likely citizens (or here legally in some other fashion).
>> And your argument about the person on the other end of the phone is exactly why FISA made it SO easy to obtain warrants
From what I can tell, that doesn't really matter in a technical sense.
The court seemed to say the President had the constitutional authority to do so.
The constitution trumps the law... so if we don't like that ability, we need to work towards a constitutional ammendment to fix whatever it was in the Constitution that the court believed gave the president that authority.
>>The both case you refer to clearly states that while search without warrant is valid when non-citizens are involved, it is not valid if citizens are. >>How could that be twisted to say that Bush's executive order is technically legal? It's not twisting the law or the court opinion at all. I think you are missing something now. The law doesn't say it's invalid if if citizens are affected. It says you can't take advantage of it if there is a reasonable chance it will capture citizens' (and other legal residents) conversations. If they are targetting phones that communicate with known (or believed to be known) terrorist cells, it really doesn't stretch the imagination to believe that they are not likely citizens (or here legally in some other fashion). >> And your argument about the person on the other end of the phone is exactly why FISA made it SO easy to obtain warrants From what I can tell, that doesn't really matter in a technical sense. The court seemed to say the President had the constitutional authority to do so. The constitution trumps the law... so if we don't like that ability, we need to work towards a constitutional ammendment to fix whatever it was in the Constitution that the court believed gave the president that authority.
IANAL, so
How does United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 915-16 (4th Cir. 1980) ("[T]he executive should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons.") fit in? That case pretty much says, that since the president is specifically doing something "National Security" related, which is his job, he is excused from 4th ammendment protections. (spooky, yes; but that seems to me how the case reads)
Also, yes, Title 50, Section 1802, (a)(1)(B) does specifically require that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States Person is a party"...
... but do we know enough about what was targeted to say that wasn't the case? Were they tapping any phone that communicated with known Al Qaeda phones or something?
In that case, there could be a reasonable (in a court sense, not necessarily in real life) argument that the person on the other end of the phone isn't like to be be a "United States Person"... and thus what he did was legal. (And what presidents before him as well)
I just don't know enough yet about what was target to say one way or another for that one.
This is one of those that will go down to details, and we just don't have enough of them "yet". I really hope we get to see some soon though.
The deeper I get into the details, the more it looks like he was technically legal. It doesn't smell quite right to me, so I need to decide whether I want to take action to make it specifially illegal, but that's a different argument.
You might want to watch who you are calling a liar then. Lying implies intent to deceive.
If someone pushes false information even though they believed it, they are not lying. They are just wrong. (I'm not saying GP was or wasn't...)
Your confusion of intent vs action seriously undermines your credibility, and limits your message.
Instructor Says: "Take us to 4,500 feet, then turn to heading 270, make sure to avoid breaking that airspace, and when you get over the test area take us into MCA flight. Now: If we lost an engine where would we land? Good, Now, where are we?" Instructor Does: "Open the map covering instruments and asks you to point out where we are" Later the instructor has to actively try do distract you with things irrelevant to flying.
Let's do something like that for driving too.
Or conversely... lets start penalizing for stupid behavior... get a national standard set for tailgaiting, publicize it for awhile, and then start zapping people.
Oh, were you on a cell phone? Agravating factor! Double charge.
Kid: I love this song... look at the lyrics... aren't they great!
Industry: Stop in the name of love
Kid: Hey, that's a lyric too, you have to sue yourselves!
Industry: Oh, I hadn't thought of that... <vanishes in a puff of logic>
That has to be balanced with the "replaceable cog" issue. People are humans, not just "resources" to be allocated. It's not that you are replacable, its that most of what you have done or learned that is significant should not have to be re-learned.
If I had everything of mine docuemented well, my company would still hurt when I left... for two reasons.
1. I'm familiar with the stuff, so I don't need to digest my documents.
2. More importantly, I can generate all these things faster than most other people could. In the case of the company I came back to work for, then replaced me with 2 other people who still couldn't keep up with the new demands. But they were able to keep the ship running in the mean time.
To follow the metaphor, they could plug a different cog in, and the machine keeps running, but might need some more maintenance, cost more, weight more, require a different form of lubrication, etc... (or less, depending on how arrogant I am =-) )
You cannot stake the company's ability to continue to business on the risk that you aren't going to get killed in some nasty accident.
I've left companies before and had it both ways. In fact, when I had to leave on my notice-day, I actually still stayed in contact with the employers, and, ended up working for them again later.
One word: Liability
What _IF_you did something...
Even though you knew beforehand... the company didn't/
It comes down to "Who knew what, when?"
>He has systematically worked to centralize the federal government on a scale not seen since FDR
Wasn't he taken to task for having too many parts of government that didn't talk to each other?
>I have no idea why Suse 8.0 was selected (not my first or second choice, by the way).
Did you read the study? Or even his response? I really can't tell from your response.
I can't guess what sort of problems you have with the choice, because you chose to give us no information beyond "It stinks".
Was your problem with Suse at all, or why they chose 8.0 instead of 9.0? Where is your problem?
"The period we looked at was July 1st, 2004 to June 30th, 2005"
Out of curiosity, what were your top choices as of July 1st, 2004 for an enterprise level solution? (ie, something breaks you can yell at the vendor...)
>The study was funded and conducted for the sole purpose of finding a favorable result for Microsoft and that is exactly what it did.
Thank you for the clear description of how you reached that conclusion given the evidence.
With such transparency in thinking you should really get into doing studies for profit as well! I can definitely see how you would be able to wade through several people's complex decisions, describing each one perfectly in all detail for every possible reader in addition to choosing people who would have through processes and environmental experience that exactly matches all the readers as well.
I'm not saying to cut the study any slack at all... I'm saying that just because you happen to believe in the prevailing theories of this group here, doesn't mean you can just say "Me too!" and expect everyone to think you're smart. (Did my AOL and MS references make it through?)
Am I smart? I really try not to be... someone might actually ask me to write something useful, and then I'd really be done for.
Following your logic, turning off auto-play for CDs on Windows wouldn't be a security measure then either, because if you manually run the autorun, then you are just as vulnerable. You work for Sony, right?
A door isn't a security measure on my house because when I unlock it, someone can get in?
Having a stateful firewall is not a security measure? Well, it can't be... because if you open ports on that, or setup a DMZ, then you're just as vulnerable.
Oh, yeah... packet filters, that's right. That's the security answer. Unless, of course, you misconfigure an incoming rule for a port you want to make available to the outside world... then you're just as vulnerable.
You say NAT isn't a security measure because if you open up a port you are just as vulnerable. That is rubbish =-)
Repeat after me: "NAT can be a very good security measure"
NAT by itself is not always the security solution, but NAT, as commonly implemented, is a very good measure.
Actually, they have to prove that what she was was not only false, but that she knew it was false.
Correct, but... My machine really has nothing on it worth compromising. All data like that is on a server that is physically secured. I SSH/RDC/Dameware into to the servers. There is one firewalled one that actually has an MS Office installation, etc... The IT version of those cool plastic boxes with the gloves that scientists use...
It's a legitimate concern in general, but we just don't know enough in specific
We had a building restack awhile back, and they wanted to bump our group into cubes. I ended up going to the Real Estate folks at HQ and letting them know that my screen would now be facing public walkways, and communications about acquisitions would be ripe for compromise. (I kinda wish we had the SOX issues back then... since I deal with private info as well, it becomes a legal issue.)
Fortunately for me, Facilities didn't want to get those goofy cubicle sliding doors, and we didn't have enough conference room space for me to be able to reserve a conference room for all my confidential meetings.
Then again, at another of our offices, all of us are in cubes, but our bank of cubes is behind a secure access controlled door, and the general users aren't allowed in there... All depends on how critical your info is, and what is available to protect it.
I wouldn't press the sube issue directly, I would press the security issue, and let management come up with their own answer.
I just don't get it... the after shot looks like the file is almost a negative... I can't quite make out what happened.
Is there water everywhere?
Is that mud and gunk on the streets where they seem to disappear?
Looks pretty nasty around there, I just can't make out exactly how
I regularly run a script which interrogates all of our Active Directory Domain Controllers simultneously, and my poor machine comes grinding down... (>50 ldapsearches at once) I have to run as root or I run out of processes I go for a walk while it runs, because my Dual-gig machine is nearly unusable while the script is running.
www.tagheuer.com