Dumb ass? Douche bag? Hey now, let's not get rough! I just took your arguments to their logical extreme.:)
You don't have some right to know who anyone is. Privacy is everyone's right. So I know that can't be your argument, as you're in favor of called id blocking correct? You seem sick of "unknown caller", so I'm not so sure how you stand there.
I can tell you I'm Daffy Duck (ignoring copyright issues) and present myself to you as such. Whether or not you have some expectation that this should be true or untrue based on the medium of this communication has no bearing. What's WRONG with saying I'm someone I'm not with the full intention of having you believe this to be true if I'm not trying to commit a crime against you? Nothing, and that's how it has always been. I can send you emails or postal mail with completely legal non-fraudulent content posing as someone I am not or posing as no one at all because I choose to do so anonymously. This is my personal freedom to do.
It may be your "private phone", but it's my private phone too. We both have a similar private connection to the internet, should I have to reveal my identity to you when I email you? Arguing that this is different seems illogical to me. You can easily jump from phone calls to emails in the same fashion. Both are simply communications sent over private networks neither of us own but pay a fee to connect to. You simply have come to expect or desire no anonymity from phones while expecting that this exists on the internet because it's a "public forum"? Not buying it, because for one most of the web isn't a public forum. It's privately run forums where the owners can do as they wish. But also because I don't see how your assumptions on the validity of people's identity should enter into this at all.
Back to phones for a moment. You don't own the phone network nor do you own my telephone termination where I can set my caller id (a feature I pay for and should be able set). You don't HAVE to have a phone and you don't HAVE to have caller id. Caller id is merely a convenience feature, it's not an authentication scheme as much as you'd like it to be.
This law is simply making a class of criminals we don't NEED. Why should we make a criminal out of someone for inconveniencing you? I just don't see the need for such a silly useless law. There have been examples of numerous USEFUL and non damaging uses for caller id "spoofing" which you have snubbed most of. This is hardly a crime and I'm not sure who this is aimed to protect other than people who don't want to be inconvenienced.
I didn't realize Cuba still had nukes pointed at us. Wait, they don't. But China does. Either the US should lift the embargo on Cuba or it should enact one on China. It's not fair or moral to embargo one nation that points nukes at us and restricts the freedoms of its people through oppression and not do the same to another. But that would never fly would it? We couldn't lift the embargo because Cuba would "win" then. And we could never embargo China, the corporations that have bought off Congress wouldn't like to lose the cheap labor and manufacturing. So we live with this bullshit then?
Hi, I'm crypticgeek. Wait no, that's not my real name...that was a LIE. You better have Congress write up a law for that too. Internets Impersonation Act of 2007! Because obviously I have NO RIGHT to lie to you about who I am. Wait...who are you? What's your name? What's your number? Where do you live? You better tell me. Stop lying. I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!!111one
I'm sure you're also in favor of Real ID and a national ID card? Because obviously the government has a right to know who you are before talking to you. Long live President Bush! What a fine country we live in. Yes, my papers are in order sir! Sieg heil! Sieg heil Amerika! I feel much safer now that I have to show my papers before I can travel anywhere. Now we are safe on planes, trains, automobiles, and everywhere! And no dirty illegal immigrants! What a country!
Your convenience in knowing who is calling is just that...a convenience and not a right. Get over it.
Of course it is. Especially now with virtualization, the ultimate hack is controlling the cpu at the virtualization level. You don't have to necessarily control the OS, but if you control the virtualization you can control it by proxy and the OS would have NO IDEA what was going on. Sort of like the Matrix. How would you know you're inside it? You couldn't. Neither could the OS. Search "blue pill attack" for discussion on the security implications of these cpu virtualization implementations.
"The Tazer? I'd use the Tazer over a baton, much less risk of injury."
No...NO NO NO NO NO! Christ, what's wrong with you? A tazer is not a non lethal weapon. It can KILL a person. The police are far too cavalier in their use of tazers. A tazer should used like the LETHAL WEAPON it is, when an officer fears serious bodily injury to himself or others...not just because a suspect resists arrest.
I still disagree. I do not care what Jay Dyson has to say, his arguments are not compelling to me. I could easily point by point refuse his flimsy arguments against the non-existance of cyberterrorism. The simple fact is I believe the people could be terrorized by terorrist control of financial, power, communications, or other networks. Fear and panic is the name of the game, and I believe they can achieve those goals without having to physically kill someone. I'm not saying it's the same as physically blowing up something and killing people. Comparing attacks on computers and attacks on people is idiotic. It's a different kind of terrorism, but it's still terrorism (gee...I guess that's why we have another word for it!).
What they can do is physiologically terrorize a people (Dyson acknowledges this in one slide, but glosses over it completely). What they can do is leverage it as a component of a physical attack (this is a big one I think). Arguing about this is semantics anyway. I think what we can all agree on is that important networks need to be secure from attacks by anyone, including terrorists.
Re:If you're worried about artificial limitations.
on
Best Non-Subscription DVR?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You think an application called MythTV is ridiculously focused on TV? Huh?
It takes two levels to look at other videos. From the main menu you go to Media Library then Watch Videos. Then you select a video to watch. The interface pretty easy to use, I don't know what more you want. MythTV is certainly not slow for me...even on a cheap moderately powered P4 based system which I use. I found the format, while not straight mpeg, is easy to work with. I've made numerous clips from tv shows using avidemux2 and it works just fine. I've heard nothing but the same from everyone I've helped set it up for. Your experience seems to be oddly negative, and I'm sorry that it was for whatever reason.
Does your shell script grab listings data and record your favorite shows? Does it have conflict resolution? Does it support multiple tuners? What about commercial detection algorithms? Is it maintained by an enthusiastic community? Is it as easy to use as tivo? Could my mom, who uses mythtv, use it? I somehow doubt it.
"There is no such thing as 'terrorism' on a computer or network."
I disagree. When computer networks reach out to real work systems it's a concern. A terrorist attack on an airport, financial, power, or similar network could not only cause wide spread outages but also alot of confusion and panic. This could be leveraged in an attack on a physical target. Can you imagine if a terrorist were to black out NY, bring down phone service, and then conduct terrorist bombings in locations around the city? It would be utter chaos. Without power to the city police and emergency officials would find it hard to communicate, mobilize, or even travel to affected areas of the city properly as panic choked the streets with people...people not only impeding rescue operations but also providing high value targets themselves. It sounds like a fantasy, I know...but so did crashing airplanes into buildings. I take information security seriously, and I sure hope DHS does.
"Coast Guards (Not covered by CIA, FBI or other Law Enforcement) - Good before DHS, and so far, no signs of bastardization...keep up the good work boys."
Hahahahaha! You have no idea do you? About how they spent millions enlongating boats (the biggest ones they had, apparently not large enough) that then turned out to be structurally unsound and would break in two. All boats retrofited this way are now a total loss and have to be destroyed. Not only do they outsource work to contractors, but get this...they outsource the MANAGEMENT of the contracts to other contractors! Talk about the fox watching the hen house. They let someone else worry about spending all that tax payer money and making all those hard "decisions". What a load off eh? I wonder who the contractor contracted to manage the contracts will give work to? Hmmmm. Oh yeah, and they are also incompetent to boot. One contractor was all ready to start deploying radios and electronics...that weren't watertight or weather resistant. One employee loudly complained they they couldn't do this, but he was ignored. They finally switched to watertight equipment after costing the tax payers plenty of money on electronics that were destroyed due to their negligent stupidity. The leadership of the Coast Guard, along with the rest of DHS, is a fucking mess of incompetence, mismanagement, and (dare I say it) criminal negligence regarding the safety and security of this country. Of course, Congress doesn't use it's over sight power to do jack shit about it. Fire the lot of them I say.
Slashdot Mirror
Dumb ass? Douche bag? Hey now, let's not get rough! I just took your arguments to their logical extreme. :)
You don't have some right to know who anyone is. Privacy is everyone's right. So I know that can't be your argument, as you're in favor of called id blocking correct? You seem sick of "unknown caller", so I'm not so sure how you stand there.
I can tell you I'm Daffy Duck (ignoring copyright issues) and present myself to you as such. Whether or not you have some expectation that this should be true or untrue based on the medium of this communication has no bearing. What's WRONG with saying I'm someone I'm not with the full intention of having you believe this to be true if I'm not trying to commit a crime against you? Nothing, and that's how it has always been. I can send you emails or postal mail with completely legal non-fraudulent content posing as someone I am not or posing as no one at all because I choose to do so anonymously. This is my personal freedom to do.
It may be your "private phone", but it's my private phone too. We both have a similar private connection to the internet, should I have to reveal my identity to you when I email you? Arguing that this is different seems illogical to me. You can easily jump from phone calls to emails in the same fashion. Both are simply communications sent over private networks neither of us own but pay a fee to connect to. You simply have come to expect or desire no anonymity from phones while expecting that this exists on the internet because it's a "public forum"? Not buying it, because for one most of the web isn't a public forum. It's privately run forums where the owners can do as they wish. But also because I don't see how your assumptions on the validity of people's identity should enter into this at all.
Back to phones for a moment. You don't own the phone network nor do you own my telephone termination where I can set my caller id (a feature I pay for and should be able set). You don't HAVE to have a phone and you don't HAVE to have caller id. Caller id is merely a convenience feature, it's not an authentication scheme as much as you'd like it to be.
This law is simply making a class of criminals we don't NEED. Why should we make a criminal out of someone for inconveniencing you? I just don't see the need for such a silly useless law. There have been examples of numerous USEFUL and non damaging uses for caller id "spoofing" which you have snubbed most of. This is hardly a crime and I'm not sure who this is aimed to protect other than people who don't want to be inconvenienced.
I didn't realize Cuba still had nukes pointed at us. Wait, they don't. But China does. Either the US should lift the embargo on Cuba or it should enact one on China. It's not fair or moral to embargo one nation that points nukes at us and restricts the freedoms of its people through oppression and not do the same to another. But that would never fly would it? We couldn't lift the embargo because Cuba would "win" then. And we could never embargo China, the corporations that have bought off Congress wouldn't like to lose the cheap labor and manufacturing. So we live with this bullshit then?
Hi, I'm crypticgeek. Wait no, that's not my real name...that was a LIE. You better have Congress write up a law for that too. Internets Impersonation Act of 2007! Because obviously I have NO RIGHT to lie to you about who I am. Wait...who are you? What's your name? What's your number? Where do you live? You better tell me. Stop lying. I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!!111one I'm sure you're also in favor of Real ID and a national ID card? Because obviously the government has a right to know who you are before talking to you. Long live President Bush! What a fine country we live in. Yes, my papers are in order sir! Sieg heil! Sieg heil Amerika! I feel much safer now that I have to show my papers before I can travel anywhere. Now we are safe on planes, trains, automobiles, and everywhere! And no dirty illegal immigrants! What a country! Your convenience in knowing who is calling is just that...a convenience and not a right. Get over it.
Since when can Congress regulate communications? Or perhaps Congress would like to get rid of the FCC and ignore the Constitution? This is silly.
Of course it is. Especially now with virtualization, the ultimate hack is controlling the cpu at the virtualization level. You don't have to necessarily control the OS, but if you control the virtualization you can control it by proxy and the OS would have NO IDEA what was going on. Sort of like the Matrix. How would you know you're inside it? You couldn't. Neither could the OS. Search "blue pill attack" for discussion on the security implications of these cpu virtualization implementations.
"The Tazer? I'd use the Tazer over a baton, much less risk of injury." No...NO NO NO NO NO! Christ, what's wrong with you? A tazer is not a non lethal weapon. It can KILL a person. The police are far too cavalier in their use of tazers. A tazer should used like the LETHAL WEAPON it is, when an officer fears serious bodily injury to himself or others...not just because a suspect resists arrest.
Criminals have rights too. That's what makes America great.
I still disagree. I do not care what Jay Dyson has to say, his arguments are not compelling to me. I could easily point by point refuse his flimsy arguments against the non-existance of cyberterrorism. The simple fact is I believe the people could be terrorized by terorrist control of financial, power, communications, or other networks. Fear and panic is the name of the game, and I believe they can achieve those goals without having to physically kill someone. I'm not saying it's the same as physically blowing up something and killing people. Comparing attacks on computers and attacks on people is idiotic. It's a different kind of terrorism, but it's still terrorism (gee...I guess that's why we have another word for it!).
What they can do is physiologically terrorize a people (Dyson acknowledges this in one slide, but glosses over it completely). What they can do is leverage it as a component of a physical attack (this is a big one I think). Arguing about this is semantics anyway. I think what we can all agree on is that important networks need to be secure from attacks by anyone, including terrorists.
You think an application called MythTV is ridiculously focused on TV? Huh? It takes two levels to look at other videos. From the main menu you go to Media Library then Watch Videos. Then you select a video to watch. The interface pretty easy to use, I don't know what more you want. MythTV is certainly not slow for me...even on a cheap moderately powered P4 based system which I use. I found the format, while not straight mpeg, is easy to work with. I've made numerous clips from tv shows using avidemux2 and it works just fine. I've heard nothing but the same from everyone I've helped set it up for. Your experience seems to be oddly negative, and I'm sorry that it was for whatever reason. Does your shell script grab listings data and record your favorite shows? Does it have conflict resolution? Does it support multiple tuners? What about commercial detection algorithms? Is it maintained by an enthusiastic community? Is it as easy to use as tivo? Could my mom, who uses mythtv, use it? I somehow doubt it.
She should have gotten a real PhD...like the ones from Pat Robertson's law school!
"There is no such thing as 'terrorism' on a computer or network."
I disagree. When computer networks reach out to real work systems it's a concern. A terrorist attack on an airport, financial, power, or similar network could not only cause wide spread outages but also alot of confusion and panic. This could be leveraged in an attack on a physical target. Can you imagine if a terrorist were to black out NY, bring down phone service, and then conduct terrorist bombings in locations around the city? It would be utter chaos. Without power to the city police and emergency officials would find it hard to communicate, mobilize, or even travel to affected areas of the city properly as panic choked the streets with people...people not only impeding rescue operations but also providing high value targets themselves. It sounds like a fantasy, I know...but so did crashing airplanes into buildings. I take information security seriously, and I sure hope DHS does.
"Coast Guards (Not covered by CIA, FBI or other Law Enforcement) - Good before DHS, and so far, no signs of bastardization...keep up the good work boys."
Hahahahaha! You have no idea do you? About how they spent millions enlongating boats (the biggest ones they had, apparently not large enough) that then turned out to be structurally unsound and would break in two. All boats retrofited this way are now a total loss and have to be destroyed. Not only do they outsource work to contractors, but get this...they outsource the MANAGEMENT of the contracts to other contractors! Talk about the fox watching the hen house. They let someone else worry about spending all that tax payer money and making all those hard "decisions". What a load off eh? I wonder who the contractor contracted to manage the contracts will give work to? Hmmmm. Oh yeah, and they are also incompetent to boot. One contractor was all ready to start deploying radios and electronics...that weren't watertight or weather resistant. One employee loudly complained they they couldn't do this, but he was ignored. They finally switched to watertight equipment after costing the tax payers plenty of money on electronics that were destroyed due to their negligent stupidity. The leadership of the Coast Guard, along with the rest of DHS, is a fucking mess of incompetence, mismanagement, and (dare I say it) criminal negligence regarding the safety and security of this country. Of course, Congress doesn't use it's over sight power to do jack shit about it. Fire the lot of them I say.