There's only one way to take care of someone who leaks mission critical information.
First you fire them. No sense in keeping them around if they are going to fuck up like that. Next you sue them for major damages. Make an example out of them.
Since a corporation has no way to punish someone with actual jail time, the next best thing is to make sure people think twice before making big mistakes again.
Then you wonder where all the job applicants went.
So you disagree with liable laws? Somebody should be able to just say anything and be removed from any responsibility of the consequences? Okay, it wasn't Google that said it, but by hiding the person who did (or creating a situation where they make it impossible to find said person) they are in effect an accomplice.
World has consequences, this is hardly a civil liberties issue.
I believe that an anonymous statement cannot be libelous because it has no authority. No one should assume any anonymous statement is factual. This isn't the same thing as a Newspaper (Or Google) stating that "This statement comes from someone who we promised would remain anonymous" It is more like Google or a Newspaper saying "This came to us as an anonymous letter."
In the former case, the 'printed source' is stating that they vouch for the authenticity of the content, but we are preserving the identity of the individual. In the latter case, the printed source is stating that they have no way to validate the data or authenticate the source.
It comes down to the concept of who is presenting the information as authentic and are they acting as a news source, or an information carrier. A news source should be held accountable for libel transgressions, a news/information carrier should not be liable as long as they do not provide anything other than a means to present the information.
Would you hold the ISP liable if you received an email that claimed Bill Gates fathered 1000 abandoned children? The ISP provided a service in which information was capable of being transmitted without verifying the data or the identity of the propagator of the claim. You can't. It isn't their responsiblity to police the data. Nor should it be as it introduces a level of censorship that would soon cripple any concept of free expression as no third party would ever become involved in propagating the information for fear of lawsuits.
Otherwise, you might as well sue the town for providing a square for someone to speak in if they don't verify what the person is saying.
"The holier than thou attitude is what I am taking issue with. "Yay America" is not an opinion, it is mocking another country for its laws. It does not earn any goodwill." Yay Planet Earth! We're Number 1!
Screw Planet Earth. If we looked at the state of freedom and included the whole of the planet I'd be pretty damned disappointed (In fact, I am).
This situation in Brazil is bad, and saying Yay America isn't inappropriate in this situation. Feel free to shout 'Yay Canada' as well, and as an American commenting on this issue I'd respond with 'Hell yeah Canada, let's not screw up like Brazil is right now'. Then I'd yell over to Europe and say "Who over there isn't screwing up like Brazil? Yay to you too!" Then we can all get together and give a good shout of 'Boo Kim Jong Il'
I'm pretty glad that you guys over in Europe have such strong protections for your populace against large corporations. Yay Germany (Last I heard they had some pretty solid protections)
But to be honest, I'm pretty damned glad for the opportunity to have been born in the United States, I think this country gets enough things right that I'm comfortable in not just saying 'yay America' but 'fuck yeah'. Especially considering how much more it could suck if I were in a country like Iran, Somalia, Sudan, etc.
I guess I understand some of the 'neato' factor that this could have, but isn't one of the big issues introduced with simple touchscreens the LACK of haptic feedback?
I love my iphone, but I miss being able to just reach into my pocket and dial a call, or skip a song/rewind, etc. Having to pull my phone out every time I want to do anything other than change the volume is damned annoying.
I could just see this kind of interface being more annoying to use.
With the ability to read the constitution - and reason above a third grade level - it is 100% clear that spying on a US citizen's communications without probable cause AND a warrant is not an authorized power for the US government or a US state. It is also doubtful that there exists, or can exist with constitution as currently constructed, a justification for a private citizen exercising such a power.
The Constitution's prohibitions against search and seizure do not apply to private citizens at all. There are supplimental laws that may prohibit certain acts, but it is not unconstitutional.
no, it's a bunch of crap. All phones have a battery-less location feature but it's only turned on if you dial 911. Otherwise, having the battery in your phone or not doesn't affect whether or not you can be tracked.
I think you mean service-less emergency dial feature. Battery-less the phone isn't going to dial anything.
I'm a PC gamer and I prefer a keyboard and mouse for FPSes. But a gamepad is generally usable as well, it just takes a little getting used to. Every non-PC gamer on the planet seems to be OK with playing FPSes with a gamepad...
As does anyone who has only ever had McDonald's hamburgers. It works, but there IS better out there, they just don't know it.
Because they abandoned it. At the time, they obviously didn't want it. They might have even left it there for you, and are simply changing their mind later. Either way, it isn't stealing because you never took it from them. In fact, you took it from nobody. You found it. The decent thing to do would be to just give it back, but it's not uncommon to ask for a finder's fee before returning it (though it is uncommon if someone lost it for such a short period of time). Seriously, what kind of dumbass is this guy? You still found it, you didn't steal it. "Right" is subjective, but I'd agree that giving it back is the decent thing to do. It still isn't theft.
You are so completely wrong I don't know where to begin. Are you basing your opinion on the case of Finders v. Keepers?
First, it doesn't matter if it is unattended, it is not your property. You removed it from the place the owner placed it. That IS theft. There is leeway for the owners of an establishment to move the item to a lost and found area, but it certainly does not become their property it remains the property of the person who owned it and left it on the table/bar/etc. Depending on the jurisdiction, you can go through a process to dispose of the item (Sell it, trash it, keep it, turn it over to the state, etc) Most jurisdictions clearly define the process and what you are required to do.
Is your justification based on the size of the item in question? That doesn't matter and doesn't alter the ownership of the item.
If someone parked a porsche on the curb and left the keys on the front seat, do you think you wouldn't get charged with grand theft auto if you simple "moved it to get it out of the rain"?
I can see you are trying to justify the theft here, but in the end Gizmodo IS in posession of stolen property.
I've never seen this actually work in a game. Not against AI, not against humans. In real life, a single stray bullet can easily ruin your day, so caution is obviously smart. In a game, someone firing in your general direction is unlikely to hit anything, and even if they do, no big deal.
I agree. I've only ever seen it work in games with a HIGH penalty for getting shot or injured AND the people playing were somewhat skilled so that the standard run forward and eventually get lucky tactic wasn't employed. So many games feel like human wave attacks.
Early versions of Day of Defeat had bleed effects and would slow down forward progress. In addition, it was tuned so that bullets were pretty lethal even if fired from a pistol. Contrast that to many 'realistic' games in which even a pistol takes multiple hits to kill. Another issue with modern games is that the target generally operates perfectly no matter if they are at 100% health or 10% health (and what is 'health'?) Red Orchestra seemed to do somewhat well. I have a fondness for DoD as it generally made machine guns feared. A well placed machine gun could be very difficult to remove and it worked well for denying an area to an opponent.
It is interesting to note that of the few games I've played that employ the 'regenerating health' mechanic, it does seem to encourage greater use of cover, which is something I like to see in games. If a warhammer mechanic could be combined to give defensive bonuses to areas designated as cover, you might see more people take advantage of it. Unfortunately we sometimes have to employ these devices since the medium is still very far removed from what it is trying to simulate.
I'd love to find a multiplayer FPS that made me fearful of getting injured or killed in game.
This was for the earlier courses in which you were learning the basics and trying to show an understanding of the theory. More of concept demonstration than software development.
My degree was Computer Engineer and much more on the EE side of things than the comp sci side of things. I'm sure in the more advanced courses you could use known libraries when the programs you were creating were the demonstration instead of a demonstration of the concepts that were often what comprised the libraries.
Most of my compsci courses were theory rather than producing any tangible programs. Again, probably not the case for those actually studying computer science.
I use code libraries and recode old stuff to new uses every day - is that cheating or just efficient coding?
Most of the professors I had would state that you were allowed to use a set list of libraries. If you wanted to use a different library, it had to be written by you and included in your submission.
The set list of libraries was quite small, usually something like std.h and not much else (I don't know if that was the library, I haven't written anything in C or much else for 10 years)
If someone asked me to (in Java say) print the numbers from 1 to 10, I would probably do something like
for (int i=1;i=10;i++) {
System.out.println(i); }
So would most other people. Would this flag me as a cheater?
Would a professor run an assignment like that through the system though?
While you do have a limited number of 'ideal' ways in which to accomplish a simple problem (one you would see in an early programming course) beginning programmers aren't going to come up with the same approach to a problem when you add in a little bit of complexity. A lot of us (I suck at programming) will come up with solutions that solve the problem, but often in quite round about manners, or have flaws which really distinguish them.
What about the LATER assignments? One I had for my early course involved writing a ticketmaster-like ticket purchasing system where it would find and temporarily reserve the 'best' seating for a block of tickets. It would release these tickets if they were not purchased. It was a very simple problem (didn't get into multiple users), but I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't be likely for two students in a group of 100 to come up with the same solution. And even if it did flag 10 of those assignments, an intelligent look at them would allow the instructor to determine if they were developed together, or just happened to be similar.
They know what they're getting into. We all buy coffee pots and wristwatches without any expectation that we'll be allowed to load arbitrary software into their CPUs.
I respect your opinion, however I would like to comment on this point.
When I buy a coffee pot or wristwatch I actually do expect that I will be allowed to load arbitrary software. What I don't expect, is that a mechanism to do that will be provided, encouraged, or even acknowledged. I have an expectation that a company will not go out of it's way to the extent that Apple has to prevent me from using the device in the manner in which I choose. It is especially bad in Apple's case since they are fighting by actively trying to prevent people from controlling their own equipment.
The ash cloud hit my city a few hours ago (Sweden). Other than the airports closed (and I don't understand why), nothing out of ordinary is going on. Sky a far away is a little bit more yellowish, nothing more. It also doesn't affect breathing as even normal street dust is more dangerous.
I'm curious as to how you claim that normal street dust is more dangerous. What do you base this on? Volcanic ash is mostly silicates, and based on what happens when you inhale other silicates (Asbestos) I wouldn't be too keen on the substituting volcanic ash for road dust.
As for why they would close the airports. It is a highly abrasive substance, and is very fouling. Running aircraft through a volcanic cloud is like subjecting it to several years of wear all at once, and not the normal wear that an engineer would design for. You would be running through your engines a very fine abrasive compound and at the same time reducing the performance of your engines as you have displaced some of the air. It can clog your machinery very quickly, especially non-jet engines. (Imagine running a piston engine and adding a highly abrasive and clogging dust to the fuel-air mixture.)
Or maybe it's people who are fed up with an unhealthy society and having to pay for the mistakes of idiots who ruin their bodies with no regards to the larger picture.
Please tell me, when did I sell any shares of my body to you? What stake do you own in me? If you are upset that the actions of others have an impact on your wallet, why did you open up your wallet to them?
By the way, do me a favor and do a few more situps. I don't want your gut slowing down my society. (not so nice having the government involved in your very body, is it?)
No they should not. All they should be doing is requiring people to tell you what it is you are about to eat. Then guess what, it is up to you to decide if you are going to stuff it in your mouth or not.
If you can't handle that limited amount of responsibility, go have yourself admitted to a hospital for the mentally infirm.
Aren't you glad that you don't have to worry about that nasty hard process of making your own decisions and bothering with informing yourself? Just know that as long as you follow the law, you will be safe.
Well, since they are in the espionage business, maybe they want to trap whomever does it by making it possible to mount the drive but triggering a silent alarm.
Not quite, the NSA can really be seen as two groups. The Data Processing NSA and the Anti-Network-Intrusion/Espionage & Policy NSA. But you are correct that they probably want the ability to determine and track before simply blocking all access.
I'm quite sure on the computer I'm at right now I could go hog-wild and do all sorts of things. Things that would be logged and flag my account/use as one to watch.
The real problem with password expiration is that the benefit is not clearly understood.
What does it combat?
Once someone HAS the password, you are faced with closing the barn door scenario. Anything that could have been taken or accessed, likely already was. Granted you may prevent them from acquiring additional information or access, but you can't be sure that they haven't made any backdoors, even if those backdoors aren't even related to your system. With your email, I could easily construct a spear phishing attempt to gather information from people whose passwords were never compromised.
Hey Bill, I'm working with Susan on XYZ project. I know that when you had trouble with the SUBCOMPONENT you resolved that with WHATEVER. I'm running into a similar problem with our SIMILAR SUBCOMPONENT. Could you take a quick look at our approach and give us your opinion?
It works. People want to help.
The real thing that I think this does help, is reducing the risk from Password creep. Everyone knows that we end up using variations on our passwords across domains. I'm willing to bet that at least 80% of people's facebook passwords are also their email passwords. Rotating does help to keep that down, but people fight against it, and likely will change ALL of their passwords to match their newly changed one.
I doubt we will ever convince people otherwise, but it is probably a hell of a lot more cost effective to have simple password rules (Or hell, just a damned physical token with a simple PIN).
Therefore when someone kills someone else on the road, they tend to want to be lenient on the killer instead of the victim, because they know that they are sometimes distracted themselves and don't pay proper attention.
Drunk driving is only as demonized as it is due to the actions of MADD and some other crusaders.
And it is because of groups like MADD (interesting use of the term crusader, btw), that I, and a growing number of people simply don't care about the issue anymore.
Not because they were wrong that drunk driving was not viewed as dangerous as it should have been, but because their organizations have gone beyond drunk driving and morphed into some sort of temperance movement. A lot of good programs, like designated driver programs for students, have been opposed because of a very hard line approach taken by MADD, SADD, and related groups.
I'm not even convinced that we should be pushing for the level of punishment that these organizations now seem to be advocating. While I don't condone reckless behavior, I'm not comfortable supporting the ever increasing punitive measures that leave people punished for the rest of their lives.
Studies have shown that talking on a mobile/cell phone has a similar effect on driving skills to being drunk. Other studies have shown that people tend to rate their driving skill as above average.
And those 'studies' are likely commissioned by groups with no vested interest in pushing for more legislation, right?
Slashdot Mirror
There's only one way to take care of someone who leaks mission critical information.
First you fire them. No sense in keeping them around if they are going to fuck up like that.
Next you sue them for major damages. Make an example out of them.
Since a corporation has no way to punish someone with actual jail time, the next best thing is to make sure people think twice before making big mistakes again.
Then you wonder where all the job applicants went.
So you disagree with liable laws? Somebody should be able to just say anything and be removed from any responsibility of the consequences? Okay, it wasn't Google that said it, but by hiding the person who did (or creating a situation where they make it impossible to find said person) they are in effect an accomplice.
World has consequences, this is hardly a civil liberties issue.
I believe that an anonymous statement cannot be libelous because it has no authority. No one should assume any anonymous statement is factual. This isn't the same thing as a Newspaper (Or Google) stating that "This statement comes from someone who we promised would remain anonymous" It is more like Google or a Newspaper saying "This came to us as an anonymous letter."
In the former case, the 'printed source' is stating that they vouch for the authenticity of the content, but we are preserving the identity of the individual. In the latter case, the printed source is stating that they have no way to validate the data or authenticate the source.
It comes down to the concept of who is presenting the information as authentic and are they acting as a news source, or an information carrier. A news source should be held accountable for libel transgressions, a news/information carrier should not be liable as long as they do not provide anything other than a means to present the information.
Would you hold the ISP liable if you received an email that claimed Bill Gates fathered 1000 abandoned children? The ISP provided a service in which information was capable of being transmitted without verifying the data or the identity of the propagator of the claim. You can't. It isn't their responsiblity to police the data. Nor should it be as it introduces a level of censorship that would soon cripple any concept of free expression as no third party would ever become involved in propagating the information for fear of lawsuits.
Otherwise, you might as well sue the town for providing a square for someone to speak in if they don't verify what the person is saying.
"The holier than thou attitude is what I am taking issue with. "Yay America" is not an opinion, it is mocking another country for its laws. It does not earn any goodwill." Yay Planet Earth!
We're Number 1!
Screw Planet Earth. If we looked at the state of freedom and included the whole of the planet I'd be pretty damned disappointed (In fact, I am).
This situation in Brazil is bad, and saying Yay America isn't inappropriate in this situation. Feel free to shout 'Yay Canada' as well, and as an American commenting on this issue I'd respond with 'Hell yeah Canada, let's not screw up like Brazil is right now'. Then I'd yell over to Europe and say "Who over there isn't screwing up like Brazil? Yay to you too!" Then we can all get together and give a good shout of 'Boo Kim Jong Il'
I'm pretty glad that you guys over in Europe have such strong protections for your populace against large corporations. Yay Germany (Last I heard they had some pretty solid protections)
But to be honest, I'm pretty damned glad for the opportunity to have been born in the United States, I think this country gets enough things right that I'm comfortable in not just saying 'yay America' but 'fuck yeah'. Especially considering how much more it could suck if I were in a country like Iran, Somalia, Sudan, etc.
I guess I understand some of the 'neato' factor that this could have, but isn't one of the big issues introduced with simple touchscreens the LACK of haptic feedback?
I love my iphone, but I miss being able to just reach into my pocket and dial a call, or skip a song/rewind, etc. Having to pull my phone out every time I want to do anything other than change the volume is damned annoying.
I could just see this kind of interface being more annoying to use.
Isn't it more an example of surviving...cliff face or cavern?
No more so than a castle is surviving... quarry rocks.
These things aren't just natural caves that happen to look like homes.
Really? I think someone needs to tell the gun-toting Americans...
This gun-toting American is agnostic.
With the ability to read the constitution - and reason above a third grade level - it is 100% clear that spying on a US citizen's communications without probable cause AND a warrant is not an authorized power for the US government or a US state. It is also doubtful that there exists, or can exist with constitution as currently constructed, a justification for a private citizen exercising such a power.
The Constitution's prohibitions against search and seizure do not apply to private citizens at all. There are supplimental laws that may prohibit certain acts, but it is not unconstitutional.
no, it's a bunch of crap. All phones have a battery-less location feature but it's only turned on if you dial 911. Otherwise, having the battery in your phone or not doesn't affect whether or not you can be tracked.
I think you mean service-less emergency dial feature. Battery-less the phone isn't going to dial anything.
I'm a PC gamer and I prefer a keyboard and mouse for FPSes. But a gamepad is generally usable as well, it just takes a little getting used to. Every non-PC gamer on the planet seems to be OK with playing FPSes with a gamepad...
As does anyone who has only ever had McDonald's hamburgers. It works, but there IS better out there, they just don't know it.
Because they abandoned it. At the time, they obviously didn't want it. They might have even left it there for you, and are simply changing their mind later. Either way, it isn't stealing because you never took it from them. In fact, you took it from nobody.
You found it. The decent thing to do would be to just give it back, but it's not uncommon to ask for a finder's fee before returning it (though it is uncommon if someone lost it for such a short period of time).
Seriously, what kind of dumbass is this guy? You still found it, you didn't steal it.
"Right" is subjective, but I'd agree that giving it back is the decent thing to do. It still isn't theft.
You are so completely wrong I don't know where to begin. Are you basing your opinion on the case of Finders v. Keepers?
First, it doesn't matter if it is unattended, it is not your property. You removed it from the place the owner placed it. That IS theft. There is leeway for the owners of an establishment to move the item to a lost and found area, but it certainly does not become their property it remains the property of the person who owned it and left it on the table/bar/etc. Depending on the jurisdiction, you can go through a process to dispose of the item (Sell it, trash it, keep it, turn it over to the state, etc) Most jurisdictions clearly define the process and what you are required to do.
Is your justification based on the size of the item in question? That doesn't matter and doesn't alter the ownership of the item.
If someone parked a porsche on the curb and left the keys on the front seat, do you think you wouldn't get charged with grand theft auto if you simple "moved it to get it out of the rain"?
I can see you are trying to justify the theft here, but in the end Gizmodo IS in posession of stolen property.
2. When using a weapon as a suppressive tool
I've never seen this actually work in a game. Not against AI, not against humans. In real life, a single stray bullet can easily ruin your day, so caution is obviously smart. In a game, someone firing in your general direction is unlikely to hit anything, and even if they do, no big deal.
I agree. I've only ever seen it work in games with a HIGH penalty for getting shot or injured AND the people playing were somewhat skilled so that the standard run forward and eventually get lucky tactic wasn't employed. So many games feel like human wave attacks.
Early versions of Day of Defeat had bleed effects and would slow down forward progress. In addition, it was tuned so that bullets were pretty lethal even if fired from a pistol. Contrast that to many 'realistic' games in which even a pistol takes multiple hits to kill. Another issue with modern games is that the target generally operates perfectly no matter if they are at 100% health or 10% health (and what is 'health'?) Red Orchestra seemed to do somewhat well. I have a fondness for DoD as it generally made machine guns feared. A well placed machine gun could be very difficult to remove and it worked well for denying an area to an opponent.
It is interesting to note that of the few games I've played that employ the 'regenerating health' mechanic, it does seem to encourage greater use of cover, which is something I like to see in games. If a warhammer mechanic could be combined to give defensive bonuses to areas designated as cover, you might see more people take advantage of it. Unfortunately we sometimes have to employ these devices since the medium is still very far removed from what it is trying to simulate.
I'd love to find a multiplayer FPS that made me fearful of getting injured or killed in game.
This was for the earlier courses in which you were learning the basics and trying to show an understanding of the theory. More of concept demonstration than software development.
My degree was Computer Engineer and much more on the EE side of things than the comp sci side of things. I'm sure in the more advanced courses you could use known libraries when the programs you were creating were the demonstration instead of a demonstration of the concepts that were often what comprised the libraries.
Most of my compsci courses were theory rather than producing any tangible programs. Again, probably not the case for those actually studying computer science.
I use code libraries and recode old stuff to new uses every day - is that cheating or just efficient coding?
Most of the professors I had would state that you were allowed to use a set list of libraries. If you wanted to use a different library, it had to be written by you and included in your submission.
The set list of libraries was quite small, usually something like std.h and not much else (I don't know if that was the library, I haven't written anything in C or much else for 10 years)
If someone asked me to (in Java say) print the numbers from 1 to 10, I would probably do something like
for (int i=1;i=10;i++) {
System.out.println(i);
}
So would most other people. Would this flag me as a cheater?
Would a professor run an assignment like that through the system though?
While you do have a limited number of 'ideal' ways in which to accomplish a simple problem (one you would see in an early programming course) beginning programmers aren't going to come up with the same approach to a problem when you add in a little bit of complexity. A lot of us (I suck at programming) will come up with solutions that solve the problem, but often in quite round about manners, or have flaws which really distinguish them.
What about the LATER assignments? One I had for my early course involved writing a ticketmaster-like ticket purchasing system where it would find and temporarily reserve the 'best' seating for a block of tickets. It would release these tickets if they were not purchased. It was a very simple problem (didn't get into multiple users), but I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't be likely for two students in a group of 100 to come up with the same solution. And even if it did flag 10 of those assignments, an intelligent look at them would allow the instructor to determine if they were developed together, or just happened to be similar.
They know what they're getting into. We all buy coffee pots and wristwatches without any expectation that we'll be allowed to load arbitrary software into their CPUs.
I respect your opinion, however I would like to comment on this point.
When I buy a coffee pot or wristwatch I actually do expect that I will be allowed to load arbitrary software. What I don't expect, is that a mechanism to do that will be provided, encouraged, or even acknowledged. I have an expectation that a company will not go out of it's way to the extent that Apple has to prevent me from using the device in the manner in which I choose. It is especially bad in Apple's case since they are fighting by actively trying to prevent people from controlling their own equipment.
The ash cloud hit my city a few hours ago (Sweden). Other than the airports closed (and I don't understand why), nothing out of ordinary is going on. Sky a far away is a little bit more yellowish, nothing more. It also doesn't affect breathing as even normal street dust is more dangerous.
I'm curious as to how you claim that normal street dust is more dangerous. What do you base this on? Volcanic ash is mostly silicates, and based on what happens when you inhale other silicates (Asbestos) I wouldn't be too keen on the substituting volcanic ash for road dust.
As for why they would close the airports. It is a highly abrasive substance, and is very fouling. Running aircraft through a volcanic cloud is like subjecting it to several years of wear all at once, and not the normal wear that an engineer would design for. You would be running through your engines a very fine abrasive compound and at the same time reducing the performance of your engines as you have displaced some of the air. It can clog your machinery very quickly, especially non-jet engines. (Imagine running a piston engine and adding a highly abrasive and clogging dust to the fuel-air mixture.)
Or maybe it's people who are fed up with an unhealthy society and having to pay for the mistakes of idiots who ruin their bodies with no regards to the larger picture.
Please tell me, when did I sell any shares of my body to you? What stake do you own in me? If you are upset that the actions of others have an impact on your wallet, why did you open up your wallet to them?
By the way, do me a favor and do a few more situps. I don't want your gut slowing down my society. (not so nice having the government involved in your very body, is it?)
No, but they should.
No they should not. All they should be doing is requiring people to tell you what it is you are about to eat. Then guess what, it is up to you to decide if you are going to stuff it in your mouth or not.
If you can't handle that limited amount of responsibility, go have yourself admitted to a hospital for the mentally infirm.
Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal.
Aren't you glad that you don't have to worry about that nasty hard process of making your own decisions and bothering with informing yourself? Just know that as long as you follow the law, you will be safe.
Well, since they are in the espionage business, maybe they want to trap whomever does it by making it possible to mount the drive but triggering a silent alarm.
Not quite, the NSA can really be seen as two groups. The Data Processing NSA and the Anti-Network-Intrusion/Espionage & Policy NSA. But you are correct that they probably want the ability to determine and track before simply blocking all access.
I'm quite sure on the computer I'm at right now I could go hog-wild and do all sorts of things. Things that would be logged and flag my account/use as one to watch.
Thanks, it did.
The real problem with password expiration is that the benefit is not clearly understood.
What does it combat?
Once someone HAS the password, you are faced with closing the barn door scenario. Anything that could have been taken or accessed, likely already was. Granted you may prevent them from acquiring additional information or access, but you can't be sure that they haven't made any backdoors, even if those backdoors aren't even related to your system. With your email, I could easily construct a spear phishing attempt to gather information from people whose passwords were never compromised.
Hey Bill, I'm working with Susan on XYZ project. I know that when you had trouble with the SUBCOMPONENT you resolved that with WHATEVER. I'm running into a similar problem with our SIMILAR SUBCOMPONENT. Could you take a quick look at our approach and give us your opinion?
It works. People want to help.
The real thing that I think this does help, is reducing the risk from Password creep. Everyone knows that we end up using variations on our passwords across domains. I'm willing to bet that at least 80% of people's facebook passwords are also their email passwords. Rotating does help to keep that down, but people fight against it, and likely will change ALL of their passwords to match their newly changed one.
I doubt we will ever convince people otherwise, but it is probably a hell of a lot more cost effective to have simple password rules (Or hell, just a damned physical token with a simple PIN).
I have no sympathy for anyone who puts personal data of that kind on an unsecured device. They made their bed, they can sleep in it.
The first rule of sensible legislation is to always assume no pity or mercy. Right?
Therefore when someone kills someone else on the road, they tend to want to be lenient on the killer instead of the victim, because they know that they are sometimes distracted themselves and don't pay proper attention.
Drunk driving is only as demonized as it is due to the actions of MADD and some other crusaders.
And it is because of groups like MADD (interesting use of the term crusader, btw), that I, and a growing number of people simply don't care about the issue anymore.
Not because they were wrong that drunk driving was not viewed as dangerous as it should have been, but because their organizations have gone beyond drunk driving and morphed into some sort of temperance movement. A lot of good programs, like designated driver programs for students, have been opposed because of a very hard line approach taken by MADD, SADD, and related groups.
I'm not even convinced that we should be pushing for the level of punishment that these organizations now seem to be advocating. While I don't condone reckless behavior, I'm not comfortable supporting the ever increasing punitive measures that leave people punished for the rest of their lives.
Studies have shown that talking on a mobile/cell phone has a similar effect on driving skills to being drunk. Other studies have shown that people tend to rate their driving skill as above average.
And those 'studies' are likely commissioned by groups with no vested interest in pushing for more legislation, right?