A password is treated like a key, and if they have a warrant you might have to turn it over. Refusal is the same as with a safe key; they can jail you indefinitely for Contempt of Court until you comply with the order.
Sadly, the reply from those pushing this stuff would be "But that's so HARD and SLOW! And it requires all this tedious paperwork for approval. We want something that can be done in a second with no red tape...
That isn't sad at all, that is a political debate they are likely to lose!
US law doesn't outlaw the torture of dissidents in China, it outlaws the torture of dissidents in the US.
It is against US law to interfere with foreign governments while overseas. It would be illegal for Cisco to interfere with China's activities, because they are sovereign. Their choices that are legal under US law are to do what China says while in China, or leave the place.
The US is politically and diplomatically opposed to the torture of dissidents in China. But that is a different thing.
It has absolutely nothing to do with a subsidiary being involved. That only matters for how the taxes are reported.
It wasn't just "folks like... Rosenberg," the Soviets managed to infiltrate (to a shockingly complete degree) all of the major US nuclear research locations. They were the second largest employers in Los Alamos and every nuclear facility.
History shows that those types of secrets don't wait around for a naughty person to leak them, they get attacked and accessed almost instantly.
"Daesh" is considered by many to be an offensive word, because it is an acronym that is a near homonym to multiple Arabic insults. Claiming they don't care about what they are called is a claim from you, not from them. Why do you speak for them, are you the new Daesh Spokesperson? No? Then maybe let them speak for themselves. If you think they don't care what people say about them, I guess you never heard of the controversy around offensive cartoons? It is a thing, look it up.
No, the cloud is handing your data over to the government. If it was you handing it over, it would be protected private data that had to be safeguarded.
When has to actually happen for you to start paying attention, anyways?
I predict it will be slightly less coherent than a cartoon tasmanian devil. Until somebody Godwin's the thread by saying "Snowden" and everybody devolves to piles of neckhair accusing each other of believing in Justice.
Now get off my lawn with your survey! I don't want any!
If you understood civics, and the process of classification of secret documents, you might have enough knowledge not to expect forthcoming answers from people who have seen real information, and are also running for office.
A fantasy politician who was going to make all the changes on these issues that you desire, whatever those changes are for you, would not be able to speak clearly on it before being elected. That is simply a fact. You're judging them using magical thinking.
Terrorists aren't even using encryption. They use languages we don't have enough interpreters to translate, along with substituting cliches for crimes in a way that defeats both computer translation and phrase-book translation.
Therefore they will not need or use the specialized systems you describe.
If you have reasonable physical security and are not a high profile target, this is ideal. I use this system.
People wave their hands and insist a service is somehow safe, but they do it using pure assertion with no actual security analysis showing it to have lower risk. And they'll freely give out the recommendation to the general public, when actually it depends on individual user context and for many (most!) users it will decrease their security. Security by colloquialism.
No, often you continue the process until you get to 5 or so and now the user is writing the passwords down. On a sticky note on the monitor is bad, but writing it in inside networked application software simply magnifies the idiocy and danger of writing it on a sticky note.
Whereas if they reuse 2 passwords instead of just one, they've already defeated your analysis.;)
More seriously, the surface area isn't as large as you think, because getting a web password doesn't tell you what other services they use. Getting their password manager password does tell you that. It lets them access sites that the user didn't even use while they were under attack. The surface area of the password manager being exploited is therefore much, much larger, even if the attack surface is smaller from certain specific angles.
The password manager being exploited gives up more access than even months of keylogging, unless you sign into every site you have a password for on a regular basis.
Any web page can easily pop up a pixel-perfect copy of the Lastpass login dialog
If popups are still a thing, that is much more shocking than the supposed "vulnerability."
I know there are serious professionals actually claiming that password managers make you more secure, but it seems obvious that having a single point of failure based on trust introduces a major vulnerability.
IMO the vulnerabilities involved are:
Running browsers that allow pop-ups.
Creating a single point of failure based on un-audited trust.
Using a networked password manager that not only can communicate over the network but actually has an API for it. The API stuff is useful for enterprise login management, but that is a different use case than these password managers, and it should be in a different product. All that stuff should be done with traditional solutions, because they already work and are easy to run on a private network and integrate into network security.
Willingness of users to run fairly new software intended to protect security. If it is less than 15 years old, it hasn't even finished beta testing yet. That is the attitude that security requires. If you don't believe me, just check the security news the past 2 years.;)
Separately from the general problem of networking, the specific feature of browser synchronization is exceptionally dangerous. There is no way ever to know how secure you are. Even code audits wouldn't help, because browser software is updated too frequently to know if new vulnerabilities have been created within the browser extension capabilities.
Modern crumple zones are really effective, and they're basically layers of cardboard made from sheet metal. I'll bet you could make a decent crumple zone with resin and cotton, but I doubt you would save money or reduce environmental impact.
I've had those sorts of days. But after the age of about 21, the rare times it happened I simply quit the job. Life is too short, and I'm worth more than that.
The reason a lot of people keep doing it is because they misunderstand money, and they think being willing to be treated that way will reward them financially. But a little more arrogance might not only improve their lifestyle, it might improve their pay too.
Your willingness to associate "happy pills" with happiness suggests you have an irrational belief in the effectiveness of drugs to make people happy. My advice, stop taking them, stop wishing for stronger ones. Just say no.
As much as I love word games, they're just laugh lines and don't really add anything. Like in business books, they use your quote as the quote at the start of a chapter, but in the actual text they use the normal word meanings, because to actually discuss how to make it all work you have to go back to the real meanings of the words.
And in this case, it seems to assist mostly in missing the point.
If you enjoy your work, it is still unhealthy for the brain if you're doing the same thing on your off time. It is physically unhealthy for the brain. And if you're telling yourself you enjoy it so much that you don't have time for other things you enjoy, that is probably some sort of compulsive disorder and you'd benefit from a vacation.
Or put it another way. If we lived in a Star Trek type of world where all the necessities were free, and the main reason to work was for entertainment, and you could mostly do anything you were able to understand, it would still be unhealthy to do the same thing every day without variety. Entertainment doesn't stay entertaining without variety. And just because there is enough variety in your job that you don't get bored during the week, that doesn't in any way refute this. Specialization is required to be advanced at anything, and there is huge physical value for the brain in including things outside what you're going to need during the week.
If you work 40 hours at Awesome Job Foo, and then go home and do 10 hours doing Foo at home in your garage, you're doing 50 hours of Foo a week. Your efficiency at task Foo will likely be lower than if you were doing Foo for only 40 hours a week. It is just the way it works. I know, I know, "I'm different, I'm a special snowflake wondernerd and my efficiency doesn't go down until I hit 80 hrs."
Well, if it is "wrong" to utter baseless, illucid nonsense in the context of commentary is a moral question.
I stand by it being wrong. You should be mildly embarrassed, at least. If not... shame on you.
But actually, your defense is a failure. It isn't baseless nonsense at all; it is nonsense based on the claim that hippies have some sort of mental deficiency that leads to an inability to tell imagination from reality. Therefore, it is not even entirely illucid. Just hateful, and such a weak statement that it cannot support or defend itself.
The thing is, you have a different opinion than me but you phrase it as if you're correcting me. That shows you didn't actually understand the perspective I was putting forth, and so your comment doesn't address it.
If they're called something different than what they actual do, then duh, my comment would cover them doing on the weekend the same thing they're doing during the week.
Did you consider that my statement was probably about the cases where my statement is true, and not about edge cases where there isn't enough specificity to claim it applies? Read the thread first, figure out the context. Until then, get off my lawn little sprout, before I get out the weed killer.
Cardboard also has a lower environmental impact than all that crap they use for cars.
That does not imply that if I built a car out of cardboard that could pass safety regulations, it would still have a lower environmental impact. All that required equipment might be the big factor there, not the legendary inefficiency of automobile production lines.;)
The thing about R is that the standard way of looking at data is in sets, and generally the most concise commands are applied to whole sets. So the utility is largely in these implicit loops and grouping that are along statistical lines of interest. One line of R might be 20 lines of C or python, but one line of C or python might be 20 lines of R.
Because of that, it is mostly used on a command like REPL to generate one-off charts and diagrams after combining data sets by hand. It is also used as an embedded language for generating reports.
R is an implementation of S, and they've been heavily used in academia for decades. There are lots of people with math or economics degrees who worked with S in school. (generally the language is called "S" and the most popular implementation is "R", but newcomers call the whole thing "R" because that is the direction it is going)
Slashdot Mirror
The rest of the world does not like eating turds
LOL they'll even feed their babies poison instead of their own breast milk if a US Corporation tells them to.
The outside world might not be quite as sophisticated as you imagine.
For further insight, see also: Coca-Cola, Disney.
A password is treated like a key, and if they have a warrant you might have to turn it over. Refusal is the same as with a safe key; they can jail you indefinitely for Contempt of Court until you comply with the order.
Sadly, the reply from those pushing this stuff would be "But that's so HARD and SLOW! And it requires all this tedious paperwork for approval. We want something that can be done in a second with no red tape...
That isn't sad at all, that is a political debate they are likely to lose!
There was not a giant flight out of European data centers after it was leaked that the US Government has access to all your files.
In fact, there wasn't even a minor flight.
Your analysis leaves out important data, like who else already has access to what, where, and what are the alternative locations for data centers?
US law doesn't outlaw the torture of dissidents in China, it outlaws the torture of dissidents in the US.
It is against US law to interfere with foreign governments while overseas. It would be illegal for Cisco to interfere with China's activities, because they are sovereign. Their choices that are legal under US law are to do what China says while in China, or leave the place.
The US is politically and diplomatically opposed to the torture of dissidents in China. But that is a different thing.
It has absolutely nothing to do with a subsidiary being involved. That only matters for how the taxes are reported.
It wasn't just "folks like... Rosenberg," the Soviets managed to infiltrate (to a shockingly complete degree) all of the major US nuclear research locations. They were the second largest employers in Los Alamos and every nuclear facility.
History shows that those types of secrets don't wait around for a naughty person to leak them, they get attacked and accessed almost instantly.
"Daesh" is considered by many to be an offensive word, because it is an acronym that is a near homonym to multiple Arabic insults. Claiming they don't care about what they are called is a claim from you, not from them. Why do you speak for them, are you the new Daesh Spokesperson? No? Then maybe let them speak for themselves. If you think they don't care what people say about them, I guess you never heard of the controversy around offensive cartoons? It is a thing, look it up.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/w...
Of those who understand it, they mostly don't care.
And the corollary, of course; Of those who care, they mostly don't understand it.
You're handing your data over to the government.
No, the cloud is handing your data over to the government. If it was you handing it over, it would be protected private data that had to be safeguarded.
When has to actually happen for you to start paying attention, anyways?
I predict it will be slightly less coherent than a cartoon tasmanian devil. Until somebody Godwin's the thread by saying "Snowden" and everybody devolves to piles of neckhair accusing each other of believing in Justice.
Now get off my lawn with your survey! I don't want any!
If you understood civics, and the process of classification of secret documents, you might have enough knowledge not to expect forthcoming answers from people who have seen real information, and are also running for office.
A fantasy politician who was going to make all the changes on these issues that you desire, whatever those changes are for you, would not be able to speak clearly on it before being elected. That is simply a fact. You're judging them using magical thinking.
Terrorists aren't even using encryption. They use languages we don't have enough interpreters to translate, along with substituting cliches for crimes in a way that defeats both computer translation and phrase-book translation.
Therefore they will not need or use the specialized systems you describe.
If you have reasonable physical security and are not a high profile target, this is ideal. I use this system.
People wave their hands and insist a service is somehow safe, but they do it using pure assertion with no actual security analysis showing it to have lower risk. And they'll freely give out the recommendation to the general public, when actually it depends on individual user context and for many (most!) users it will decrease their security. Security by colloquialism.
No, often you continue the process until you get to 5 or so and now the user is writing the passwords down. On a sticky note on the monitor is bad, but writing it in inside networked application software simply magnifies the idiocy and danger of writing it on a sticky note.
Whereas if they reuse 2 passwords instead of just one, they've already defeated your analysis. ;)
More seriously, the surface area isn't as large as you think, because getting a web password doesn't tell you what other services they use. Getting their password manager password does tell you that. It lets them access sites that the user didn't even use while they were under attack. The surface area of the password manager being exploited is therefore much, much larger, even if the attack surface is smaller from certain specific angles.
The password manager being exploited gives up more access than even months of keylogging, unless you sign into every site you have a password for on a regular basis.
Any web page can easily pop up a pixel-perfect copy of the Lastpass login dialog
If popups are still a thing, that is much more shocking than the supposed "vulnerability."
I know there are serious professionals actually claiming that password managers make you more secure, but it seems obvious that having a single point of failure based on trust introduces a major vulnerability.
IMO the vulnerabilities involved are:
Modern crumple zones are really effective, and they're basically layers of cardboard made from sheet metal. I'll bet you could make a decent crumple zone with resin and cotton, but I doubt you would save money or reduce environmental impact.
That is the opposite of "irony," though.
Good catch, but that is actually that is just Hyundai Motor Company. It is less than 6x once you include the rest of the Hyundai Group.
However, when you compare revenue then Hyundai is bigger than Apple. And if you use the 10 year average, it isn't even close.
I've had those sorts of days. But after the age of about 21, the rare times it happened I simply quit the job. Life is too short, and I'm worth more than that.
The reason a lot of people keep doing it is because they misunderstand money, and they think being willing to be treated that way will reward them financially. But a little more arrogance might not only improve their lifestyle, it might improve their pay too.
Your willingness to associate "happy pills" with happiness suggests you have an irrational belief in the effectiveness of drugs to make people happy. My advice, stop taking them, stop wishing for stronger ones. Just say no.
As much as I love word games, they're just laugh lines and don't really add anything. Like in business books, they use your quote as the quote at the start of a chapter, but in the actual text they use the normal word meanings, because to actually discuss how to make it all work you have to go back to the real meanings of the words.
And in this case, it seems to assist mostly in missing the point.
If you enjoy your work, it is still unhealthy for the brain if you're doing the same thing on your off time. It is physically unhealthy for the brain. And if you're telling yourself you enjoy it so much that you don't have time for other things you enjoy, that is probably some sort of compulsive disorder and you'd benefit from a vacation.
Or put it another way. If we lived in a Star Trek type of world where all the necessities were free, and the main reason to work was for entertainment, and you could mostly do anything you were able to understand, it would still be unhealthy to do the same thing every day without variety. Entertainment doesn't stay entertaining without variety. And just because there is enough variety in your job that you don't get bored during the week, that doesn't in any way refute this. Specialization is required to be advanced at anything, and there is huge physical value for the brain in including things outside what you're going to need during the week.
If you work 40 hours at Awesome Job Foo, and then go home and do 10 hours doing Foo at home in your garage, you're doing 50 hours of Foo a week. Your efficiency at task Foo will likely be lower than if you were doing Foo for only 40 hours a week. It is just the way it works. I know, I know, "I'm different, I'm a special snowflake wondernerd and my efficiency doesn't go down until I hit 80 hrs."
Well, if it is "wrong" to utter baseless, illucid nonsense in the context of commentary is a moral question.
I stand by it being wrong. You should be mildly embarrassed, at least. If not... shame on you.
But actually, your defense is a failure. It isn't baseless nonsense at all; it is nonsense based on the claim that hippies have some sort of mental deficiency that leads to an inability to tell imagination from reality. Therefore, it is not even entirely illucid. Just hateful, and such a weak statement that it cannot support or defend itself.
*woosh*
The thing is, you have a different opinion than me but you phrase it as if you're correcting me. That shows you didn't actually understand the perspective I was putting forth, and so your comment doesn't address it.
If they're called something different than what they actual do, then duh, my comment would cover them doing on the weekend the same thing they're doing during the week.
Did you consider that my statement was probably about the cases where my statement is true, and not about edge cases where there isn't enough specificity to claim it applies? Read the thread first, figure out the context. Until then, get off my lawn little sprout, before I get out the weed killer.
Cardboard also has a lower environmental impact than all that crap they use for cars.
That does not imply that if I built a car out of cardboard that could pass safety regulations, it would still have a lower environmental impact. All that required equipment might be the big factor there, not the legendary inefficiency of automobile production lines. ;)
The thing about R is that the standard way of looking at data is in sets, and generally the most concise commands are applied to whole sets. So the utility is largely in these implicit loops and grouping that are along statistical lines of interest. One line of R might be 20 lines of C or python, but one line of C or python might be 20 lines of R.
Because of that, it is mostly used on a command like REPL to generate one-off charts and diagrams after combining data sets by hand. It is also used as an embedded language for generating reports.
R is an implementation of S, and they've been heavily used in academia for decades. There are lots of people with math or economics degrees who worked with S in school. (generally the language is called "S" and the most popular implementation is "R", but newcomers call the whole thing "R" because that is the direction it is going)