"Is it up to Microsoft to require people to use secure passwords? Is it up to Oracle to require people with sensitive data to use the data encryption features of Oracle? Is it up to the postfix authors to require people to not run open mail relays?
As always, security is left up to those running the system. Similarly, wireless network security is up to those running the network. You can't force people to be secure. All you can do is strongly encourage it."
Certainly the responsibility is the individual user's. But frequently they don't know enough about it to know what to do or even how to find out what to do. And it can be worse than that.
When I got my DSL connection, the ISP (a major U.S. telephone company) sent me a modem/router with very basic instructions that said plug this wire in here and that wire in there. Nothing was said about wireless or encryption. However, I noted an antenna on the box and figured that was for wireless.
So I called the company's technical support to find out how to turn it on/off and how to set up encryption. The tech support guy told me not to worry, that the wireless was turned on by default. As for encryption, he said his company did NOT support encryption on wireless. After some pleading, he finally told me how to log into the router. But he would say nothing else, not even a hint on how to turn on encryption. (Since, at the time, I had no wireless devices, I simply turned off the wireless link. Subsequently, I acquired a laptop with wireless and figured out how to encrypt my traffic.)
The point of this is that even though I had the sense to ask how to make my wireless connection (somewhat) secure, the company was unwilling to provide any help and only after much pleading did they even provide a hint as to how I could control the thing. So even if an individual wants to take responsibility, it is not always possible.
Remember when Clinton fired all the folks in the White House travel office--all folks who served "at the pleasure of the President."? There was such an outcry from the Republicans you would have thought he had outlawed the Republican Party. All he did was fire a few folks who made travel arrangements for the press. George, on the other hand, has fired people who are the first line in the administration of our system of justice, and apparently done so because they wouldn't consider politics when deciding who to prosecute. I think former Congressman Hungate's comment during the Watergate hearings apply very well to your views too: "If an elephant walked through the door, there are some people who would say it is only a mouse with a glandular condition."
"It's not weird. Despite the best attempts of the US media, the US Attorney firings is a non-story. The US Attorneys serve at the "will of the President". According to the US Constitution, the President may fire any US Attorney at any time for any reason. It may be that you don't like the reason that President Bush fired these Attorney's. It may be that it was a bad reason. All of the things that everyone has alleged negatively about these firings may be true. It doesn't matter, it was legal. If you think it was inappropriate, don't vote for G.W. Bush when he runs for re-election. OH, that's right, he can't run for re-election. That means that this is a non-story. To summarize, the firings weren't illegal, the President can't run for re-election."
I find it very amusing that the party of morality is having to use the immoral Clinton excuse of "nothing illegal happened." Bill's fling with Monica wasn't illegal (two consenting adults and all that) but the blue nosed moralist Republicans impeached him anyway. So how is firing U.S. Attorneys for pursuing the "wrong" political cases or not pursuing the "right" ones any different. Not illegal since the President can do whatever he pleases (we won't talk about abuse of prosecutorial discretion) but immoral as hell nonetheless. So let's see, Bill's escapades were worthy of impeachment because, while not illegal, they were immoral and brought the office into disrepute. But George's firing prosecutors for not showing the proper political tilt in the cases they pursued is apparently in your view neither illegal nor immoral. I don't know how to save the Republic with folks like you running around.
Sex is bad; throw the bastard out. But perverting our justice system isn't illegal so just forget the whole thing.
I would suggest that using FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) to get "your government files" from the Federal government is not the way to go. FOIA only applies to information that is public--e.g., how many civilian employees does the Energy Department have or what is the budget for paper clips in the division of widget design. FOIA does not apply to most personal information. You are much more likely to get information about yourself which is maintained by the Federal government by filing a request under the Privacy Act. There are many exceptions to what has to be disclosed under the Privacy Act; but, as a former Federal FOIA & Privacy Act officer, let me tell you that there are many more exceptions under FOIA--one of them being information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. If you really want to file under FOIA, then include mention of the Privacy Act too or you may be surprised how little information get.
"It's as if these legislators don't pay any attention to what happens in other states."
"This has been tried before--the courts have ALWAYS struck it down as a first ammendment violation. What makes each state think that they can get away with it?"
You forget the Oklahoma state motto: Ignorant, and proud of it!
It's sickening, terrifying, and getting worse every day. But I am afraid the intelligence agencies' abuse and violation of citizens rights and the law is nothing new. I believe it was Bamford in The Puzzle Palace who described how between WWI and WWII, when Congress had outlawed Government access to telegrams (among other things), the Army (then in charge of communications intelligence) simply made an agreement with Western Union (maybe others too). Army agents would visit the New York office (which then handled all overseas cable traffic from Europe) and sit in the manager's office while he was "at lunch" and peruse the last 24 hours worth of international cables.
I suspect the CIA and NSA (FBI most likely also) have equal qualms about violating the law today--especially when we have a President who thinks he is the law. Only way to stop it is to get rid of the agencies. And you know how likely that is to happen.
"Fail that remedial biology? Your prostate is nowhere (topologically) near your asshole. Wrong path. It would have to go up and back down again. Large and small intestine vs bladder and urethra. Shorter route would be through your stomache."
The author of this comment must be either (a) female or (b) not old enough to be put through the annual indignity of a "digital rectal exam" of his prostate as part of an annual physical. For those unfamiliar with this procedure, it involves the doctor's inserting his finger up your rear in order to feel the top of your prostate through your rectum wall. It would be quite a long reach if he had to get at your prostate through your stomach!
Slashdot Mirror
"Is it up to Microsoft to require people to use secure passwords? Is it up to Oracle to require people with sensitive data to use the data encryption features of Oracle? Is it up to the postfix authors to require people to not run open mail relays?
As always, security is left up to those running the system. Similarly, wireless network security is up to those running the network. You can't force people to be secure. All you can do is strongly encourage it."
Certainly the responsibility is the individual user's. But frequently they don't know enough about it to know what to do or even how to find out what to do. And it can be worse than that.
When I got my DSL connection, the ISP (a major U.S. telephone company) sent me a modem/router with very basic instructions that said plug this wire in here and that wire in there. Nothing was said about wireless or encryption. However, I noted an antenna on the box and figured that was for wireless.
So I called the company's technical support to find out how to turn it on/off and how to set up encryption. The tech support guy told me not to worry, that the wireless was turned on by default. As for encryption, he said his company did NOT support encryption on wireless. After some pleading, he finally told me how to log into the router. But he would say nothing else, not even a hint on how to turn on encryption. (Since, at the time, I had no wireless devices, I simply turned off the wireless link. Subsequently, I acquired a laptop with wireless and figured out how to encrypt my traffic.)
The point of this is that even though I had the sense to ask how to make my wireless connection (somewhat) secure, the company was unwilling to provide any help and only after much pleading did they even provide a hint as to how I could control the thing. So even if an individual wants to take responsibility, it is not always possible.
Remember when Clinton fired all the folks in the White House travel office--all folks who served "at the pleasure of the President."? There was such an outcry from the Republicans you would have thought he had outlawed the Republican Party. All he did was fire a few folks who made travel arrangements for the press. George, on the other hand, has fired people who are the first line in the administration of our system of justice, and apparently done so because they wouldn't consider politics when deciding who to prosecute. I think former Congressman Hungate's comment during the Watergate hearings apply very well to your views too: "If an elephant walked through the door, there are some people who would say it is only a mouse with a glandular condition."
"It's not weird. Despite the best attempts of the US media, the US Attorney firings is a non-story. The US Attorneys serve at the "will of the President". According to the US Constitution, the President may fire any US Attorney at any time for any reason. It may be that you don't like the reason that President Bush fired these Attorney's. It may be that it was a bad reason. All of the things that everyone has alleged negatively about these firings may be true. It doesn't matter, it was legal. If you think it was inappropriate, don't vote for G.W. Bush when he runs for re-election. OH, that's right, he can't run for re-election. That means that this is a non-story. To summarize, the firings weren't illegal, the President can't run for re-election."
I find it very amusing that the party of morality is having to use the immoral Clinton excuse of "nothing illegal happened." Bill's fling with Monica wasn't illegal (two consenting adults and all that) but the blue nosed moralist Republicans impeached him anyway. So how is firing U.S. Attorneys for pursuing the "wrong" political cases or not pursuing the "right" ones any different. Not illegal since the President can do whatever he pleases (we won't talk about abuse of prosecutorial discretion) but immoral as hell nonetheless. So let's see, Bill's escapades were worthy of impeachment because, while not illegal, they were immoral and brought the office into disrepute. But George's firing prosecutors for not showing the proper political tilt in the cases they pursued is apparently in your view neither illegal nor immoral. I don't know how to save the Republic with folks like you running around.
Sex is bad; throw the bastard out. But perverting our justice system isn't illegal so just forget the whole thing.
I would suggest that using FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) to get "your government files" from the Federal government is not the way to go. FOIA only applies to information that is public--e.g., how many civilian employees does the Energy Department have or what is the budget for paper clips in the division of widget design. FOIA does not apply to most personal information. You are much more likely to get information about yourself which is maintained by the Federal government by filing a request under the Privacy Act. There are many exceptions to what has to be disclosed under the Privacy Act; but, as a former Federal FOIA & Privacy Act officer, let me tell you that there are many more exceptions under FOIA--one of them being information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. If you really want to file under FOIA, then include mention of the Privacy Act too or you may be surprised how little information get.
Nacht und Nebel anyone? If it was good enough for the Nazis, it's good enough for George!
"It's as if these legislators don't pay any attention to what happens in other states."
"This has been tried before--the courts have ALWAYS struck it down as a first ammendment violation. What makes each state think that they can get away with it?"
You forget the Oklahoma state motto: Ignorant, and proud of it!
It's sickening, terrifying, and getting worse every day. But I am afraid the intelligence agencies' abuse and violation of citizens rights and the law is nothing new. I believe it was Bamford in The Puzzle Palace who described how between WWI and WWII, when Congress had outlawed Government access to telegrams (among other things), the Army (then in charge of communications intelligence) simply made an agreement with Western Union (maybe others too). Army agents would visit the New York office (which then handled all overseas cable traffic from Europe) and sit in the manager's office while he was "at lunch" and peruse the last 24 hours worth of international cables. I suspect the CIA and NSA (FBI most likely also) have equal qualms about violating the law today--especially when we have a President who thinks he is the law. Only way to stop it is to get rid of the agencies. And you know how likely that is to happen.
"Fail that remedial biology? Your prostate is nowhere (topologically) near your asshole. Wrong path. It would have to go up and back down again. Large and small intestine vs bladder and urethra. Shorter route would be through your stomache."
The author of this comment must be either (a) female or (b) not old enough to be put through the annual indignity of a "digital rectal exam" of his prostate as part of an annual physical. For those unfamiliar with this procedure, it involves the doctor's inserting his finger up your rear in order to feel the top of your prostate through your rectum wall. It would be quite a long reach if he had to get at your prostate through your stomach!