I wrote an article about spooks and social networks a while back when I used to use Orkut... Many thought it was far fetched... Imagine that... Cached Article
This country has been pushing out some of the strangest laws. Did the justices consider their ruling is likely to make someone think before reporting corruption. First it was the Bush administrations illegal wiretaps via the NSA, even though its not necessarily new news, now this. So what the current government has is a one two punch... If a whisteblower wants to report possible illegal activity, they may face the wraith of being tracked by the NSA, then the wrath of a justice system that's catering to criminals...
I currently work at a communications company (VoIP, IP, PBX, etc.) and I would suggest that before IT managers dish out money for connections, they sit and analyze traffic patterns and do some QoS, policy based routing before kicking out money for a faster connection. Many companies dish out unnecessary money for faster connections when all they have to do is creative filtering beforehand. You take out 20 audio streamers and I guarantee you some of those bottlenecks won't be an issue. I used to work in a small office with about 40 employees. I had a business cable connection with 5mb speed and ran VoIP services, Internet services, etc. without issues. I also set up some cache servers and streamlined what went and came in first, to make sure business came first no matter what. Best thing to do before ordering a faster connection is to do an analysis of the current architecture and go from there.
10 REM Nerd Fight Club 20 REM packetmon 30 FOR X=10 TO 1 STEP -1 40 PRINT X;"Oh yea"; 50 IF X<>1 THEN PRINT "!"; 60 PRINT "take that,";X;"jackass"; 70 IF X<>1 THEN PRINT "!"; 80 PRINT "give in!" 90 NEXT
Strangely my brother in law and his coworkers have been doing this in NYC. They're not geeks though, they're all automechanics for Mercedes Benz. When I heard what they were doing I shrugged at their stupidity. There are more creative and energizing ways to vent frustrations, unload stress. What is going to happen when one co-worker goes overboard and really injures someone. By USA Today and other media outlets even giving these idiots the time of day, I can see where the younger crowds get the moronic ideas from. To each their own, but common sense dictactes that teens who see that article will likely take the "well if the adults can do it so can we...". What kind of example are those guys setting. As in the movie fight club, they shouldn't have talked about it. The least they could have done was some PPV "Geek Extreme Fighting... Microsoft Developers vs. Open Source Developers"...
I agree, the current look is something akin to historical and functional. The new look does not look that "new". Rounded corners were replaced by sharp edges along with a new font. How exactly does this qualify for a new look?
Well the article was about Airbus however if you take note of my previous post in this thread, Boeing isn't in the clear on this either...
BOEING 737 PROBLEMS REACH FRESH HEIGHTS
Autopilot computer systems on Boeing 737s have been hit by a problem which has
caused aircraft to change height without warning. It is believed that full
details of the problem have been requested by the investigators into the crash
of the British Midland 737 on the M1 motorway in January. One theory is that
the crew were misled by cockpit instruments. Risks Digest
It seems to be a combination of software vendors not necessarily the airline manufacture, but both. Doesn't make a difference if its Airbus, Boeing, etc., they're all likely following industry standards that probably need some major revisions.
The downside of this faith in technology soon becomes apparent, however. The following five examples graphically illustrate this.
a. When my brother was assigned captain to the then newly introduced Airbus A 310 - a plane which in the 1980s was considered a high-tech aircraft but today already appears antiquated - he told me about an incident that gave me pause: During the last stage of the final approach, a bolt of lightning struck the nose of the aircraft, damaging the plane's electronic equipment in the process. The confused on-board computer still had a suggestion to make, however, and flashed it on the screen: "Shut down engines."
Now no sensible pilot in the world would do that during this stage of flight, so "Colleague Computer's" suggestion was ignored. The incident itself makes one stop and think, however: Isn't there the danger that at some point in the future the on-board computer will not merely make a suggestion but go ahead and take action itself? Isn't there perhaps even a danger that one day, in keeping with the new philosophy I mentioned earlier, the pilot will only be able to intervene to the extent permitted by the computer? No matter how enthusiastically one may basically embrace technical progress, anyone who has retained any critical perspective at all will find it impossible to answer this question with an unequivocal "no". The following additional examples make it clear that a healthy dose of scepticism is by no means unwarranted.
b. On 26 June 1988, a brand-new Air France A 320 that was participating in an air show crashed in a wooded area in the Alsatian town of Habsheim near Mulhouse while performing an extremely low altitude fly by. When the pilot reached the end of the runway and wanted to power up the engines from minimum thrust to the thrust required for climb, the aircraft failed to react to his signal to commence the climb: Since the plane had been flying over the airfield at minimum speed (VLs) on the verge of a stall, the on-board computer refused to obey the command to lift the nose, for if the low thrust had remained unchanged, lifting the nose would have caused the plane to stall and then crash. The plane had not yet attained the higher speed necessary to avert a stall, however, because a jet engine needs several seconds to accelerate. Thus the A 320, controlled by computer logic and unresponsive to the pilot's will, flew into the adjoining woods.
c. On 14 September 1993, a Lufthansa A 320 crashed in Warsaw while landing on a wet runway in the rain. Due to the strong crosswind, the pilot tilted the plane slightly to the right just before touchdown; it thus touched down first on the right main landing gear and then on the left. As a consequence of the A 320's construction at the time, the spoilers (which changes the airflow round the wings, modifying the lift and thus bringing the plane down to the ground) did not work because the main landing gear on both sides were not fully weighted and the wheels - due in no small part to the aquaplaning effect - were not turning at the programmed speed. In short: According to the logic of the computer, the plane had not yet landed but was still turning. Thus the spoilers, which would create a braking effect, were not to be activated. At that time neither the thrust reversers nor the spoilers of an Airbus A 320 - in contrast to a Boeing 737, for instance - could be manually activated. As a result, the aircraft - braked too slowly and too late - raced towards the end of the runway. The human being (pilot) was helpless.
As if that were not enough, the on-board computer did one more thing: The pilot could not fully activate the thrust reversers to brake the plane because the engine performance had been reduced to a maximum of 71 percent of full reverse thrust in order to protect the engines. A captain friend of mine remarked: "That would not have happened with my B 737."
Conclusion: "The pilot, who in a crisis decides against protecting the engine
"Autopilot computer systems on Boeing 737s have been hit by a problem which has
caused aircraft to change height without warning. It is believed that full details of the problem have been requested by the investigators into the crash of the British Midland 737 on the M1 motorway in January. One theory is that the crew were misled by cockpit instruments.
Six incidents have been recorded by British Airways on its aircraft but the
company says there has never been any danger because the crews have always
checked the autopilot actions against other cockpit instruments.
The problem occurs after a pilot enters a new height to the autopilot. The
system displays the instruction, but under certain circumstances the aircraft
moves to a different height and the autopilot then displays the new reading.
One senior British Airways captain says the autopilot seems to use instructions
entered earlier, even as long ago as the previous flight.
British Airways has called the problem "random memory initiation" and says it
is caused by unexpected electromagnetic conditions such as lightning, strong
radar signals, or an electrical power surge. Boeing says it has no evidence of
any accidents occurring because of the problems.(source: Risks Digest
I recall reading about these dangers during the 9/11 investigation. Supposedly there were arguments leaning towards an automatic autopilot override for authorities to use in the event of something like 9/11 occurring again, the problem was just that... Too many problems and glitches with these systems. Airbus themselves have had these issues on a crash...
China Airlines A300 Disaster
China Airlines A300 crashed at Japan's Nagoya airport, killing 264 of 271 people on board. The most likely cause of the crash was not solely the fault of software, but the confused interactions between software and human, in this case between the 26-year old copilot of the plane who was attempting to land the plane and the autopilot of the plane.
Two minutes before the plane was about to land, the autopilot of the plane went into take-off/go-around for reasons the investigation could not determine. In effect, this caused the autopilot to attempt to control the plane in a way that was directly opposite to what the human pilot was attempting to control.
Most laypeople don't even understand what Bluetooth is let alone turning it off. This was a huge mistake assuming people understand why a port was open on a PC (135, 139) which gave way to massive worms and viruses. Even if you have Bluetooth turned off, that isn't the only avenue to spread a virus via cellular. Most phones nowadays have the capability to connect online somehow, so who's to say that someone couldn't craft in JSCRIPT or so.
Just because there aren't as many at this time doesn't mean it isn't likely to become a big issue in the future. What I perceive happening at some point is a rogue group creating viruses to steal contacts then selling those contacts. Imagine the market for say Pamela Anderson's phone list... Imagine one for say the phone list of the President. While doing network studies (CCDP) I thought about the dangers of a multicast worm/virus. It would work spoofing corrupt images say to MSN messenger or Yahoo messenger or any other IM client which is streaming ads... Once streamed an infected image would take over a victim machine... While the concept is theoretical it isn't that far fetched...
A desktop search engine enhances your Illumio experience. The DSE creates an index of the files (all or just the ones you designate) and Illumio uses this information to more efficiently filter requests so you receive more precisely matched recommendations. How can a search of files on my machine enhance someone else's opinion... "This is searching your friends' heads as reflected in what's on their computers," Ms. Dyson said. I have about 4 laptops at home. This happens to be my FreeBSD "anything goes machine" and I have my business laptop kept off of my home network. I have about 14+ years working experience in the IT field. On this machine I have nothing but music and art. Does this mean I would not qualify to answer questions about routers, session border controllers, VoIP equipment. Outside of what is known about this software, their words on privacy seem a little off-beat to me... "A simple search of what's on someone's machine will determine their level of expertise... I have another laptop my girlfriend uses to surf. Her cache is filled with "fashion" stuff... Will I be asked to partake based of her cache. Seems slightly ridiculous the more I think about it...
How could this model label someone an expert when all they're doing is an assessment and rendering an opinion. I can see this posing a problem if say Company X introduced fakesters into a social circle to hype up a product. For example, a social circle with MS workers will likely give negative influence to someone seeking to say purchase Redhat. Coca Cola... Pepsi, and the possibilities become endless. Sounds like an idea, but there is no guarantee of getting untainted honest results simply catered opinions.
The more I think about the term "Upgrade", I sit and wonder... How exactly are they "Upgrading" this? It can't be a physical upgrade obviously... Windows Update Upgrade!?!... TCP/IP over Satellite? What kind of upgrade are they actually doing? An algorithmic upgrade? Since it would have to be a "transmitted" upgrade, how much could that actually cost think about it... It's not like NASA needs to pay some ISP for bandwidth in Space... Programming upgrades? How much could they possibly cost...
By now most people should know what will end up happening with this "Free(dumb)Network". Governments will disallow under harsh penalties usage of such a network. They will all claim security takes precedence over privacy. The problems with this current infrastructure aren't the lack of available tools to ensure privacy (PGP, SSL, S/MIME, VPN, etc), the problem is with the people who 1) don't understand the underlying need for privacy, 2) lack of standardization in implementing these tools. How niche would it be to create a "Secure ISP" based service where everything was encrypted on the wire before it left your network? Wouldn't be all that difficult but most common people wouldn't understand the need for it if it slapped them in the face.
Outside of that, what would end up happening with a "niche provider" would be the interaction with a "non niche" provider who wasn't providing security. They overlap and that will forever be a problem. Here in the US as we all have seen, what will likely happen in one of these Free(dumb)Networks is, the gov will spew the catch phrase Osama and all things terror and knock this notion down the drain. I'm a huge privacy advocate and believe in security to the fullest, but even I feel there is no need for an all inclusive "SecureNet". The typical network transaction does not warrant the network and application overhead needed. I do know however that when I need something said securely, processed securely, transacted securely, I don't rely on any protocol, person or program. Rather I rely on myself which is the main and most fundamental point on the security food chain.
As for the notion of a petition, it will go nowhere with this crapaganda of things terror related. To an extent I agree with some portions of governments pickings when it comes to security and privacy, but I also know governments' current actions are likely to create smarter criminals. This is evident in the computer security industry where viruses are now utilizing encryption schemes to hide themselves and their actions... Imagine clusters of terrorists doing the same... So to a degree I empathize with governments... They just don't have a clue, but at the same time their actions will be their stepping blocks.
Set back into each urinal is a pressure-sensitive display, which activates an interactive game when used. This game includes sounds and images, bringing entertainment value to where you'd least expect. It will most likely will be installed in airports and schools "with the functional purpose of improving hygiene". This might be good to potty train kids but I don't see its function in a rest stop. "Wait Bob, before you pull off the semi I scored a 3 pissing on Pac Man"...
My comments show no sympathy for MS. If you think no company has wielded MS' influence then you've never heard of the Baby Bells, Big Blue, Tyco or SAIC.
A lot of lobbying money goes a long way. Right now Google is doing what Microsoft was sued for. If MS played its political cards correctly they'd be able to pull it off (the purchase of eBay). The problem with so called commissions and appointees judging what's right and wrong is that they can often be tainted with money and political influence. MS has deep reaches in Washington hence them getting away with e-Murder for years. What I find to be unmentioned is the foreign take on this. When it comes to matters such as corporations buying each other, I see little foreign intervention. I wonder how many "strawman" companies are under control of American interests end up coming back and buying out a company under a diff name. (Apologies if the explanation seems confusing...) MS tries to buy Company Z. Antitrust worries won't allow it. MS buys Company X in Europe. Company X buys Company Z. Company Z is liquidated back into MS. Happens all the time.
You're incorrect about what they actually want... The government hasn't made clear what information they want retained. They're not sure if they want entire sessions of just session information. I wonder if the government is going to subsidize monies for companies to build their infrastructures to accomodate the information the government is soliciting. If I were a small business and did not have the money in my budget to fill this task should I be fined?
While it may seem to be the solution, how long before companies are pressured to place something on the operating system level, say a keylogger? Wouldn't be the first time the government went this route (Google FBI +Magic Lantern). As a whole I would think too much crypto usage would create a boon in cybercriminals using crypto for malice thereby giving the government justification for passing laws to ban cryptos. Akin to gun laws... Guns don't kill people...
This two-part article series looks at how cryptography is a double-edged sword: it is used to make us safer, but it is also being used for malicious purposes within sophisticated viruses. Part two continues the discussion of armored viruses and then looks at a Bradley worm - a worm that uses cryptography in such a way that it cannot be analyzed. Then it is shown how Skype can be used for malicious purposes, with a crypto-virus that is very difficult to detect.(SecurityFocus
Motley Fool staffers are just now realizing that Google is slowly running out of gas. Perhaps all this clickfraud exposure is leaving people wondering how could they get away with this Internet ponzi scam for so long... Luckily Google got a little smarter and quieted the naysayers a bit by doing the MS thing and buying all the competition around them. Smart move. MS bought all threats and consumed them into the heap of junk calls Windows. Google is doing the same slowly via different angles (Skype, Writely... which competes with MS' Word, Andriod, etc). Anyhow, since its all opinionated, I wonder when will Google's true adclick fraud will truly come to fruition... Experts estimate the true value of what Google would owe would be a couple of BILLION in clickfraud.
So again... Fact someone REPORTED THE NAME OF VALERIE PLAME TO NOVAK. Let me type it in english. Someone reported the name Valerie Plame to NOVAK. Since you dared... 1, 2, 3 (Department of Energy, If left alone, Freeh warned, unbreakable encryption poses a threat to fighting crime through wiretapping., Finally... Case Study of HR 695: The Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act... This is where the government decided to place controls on encryption leaving the US because (guess what...) the government cannot break ciphers as easily as you might think. So when I use the term "Unbreakable Crypto", let me make it clear what I mean... Without the keys its impossible... With the keys... Good luck. It would 1) take too long 2) require more space then there currently is ON THE PLANET 3) by the time they cracked it, it would likely mean nothing.
You're wrong. FACT #1: Novak wrote the column. Cheney and Libby Scooter leaked it to him, read the court documents and get your information correct. FACT#2 Cryptography such as PGP is unbreakable as it is known. Assume? We know the breakdown of that term. FACT#3 If the NSA should decide to sniff encrypted traffic, and if by slight chance they had enough disk space and time to break the message, chances are, within the amount of time needed to break the encryption, an act of terrorism would have been acted out making their sniffing worthless. Takes time to break codes so I suggest you read up on the problems of cracking codes (A Tutorial on Linear and Differential Cryptanalysis)
128-bit encryption: 0.25 sextillion years. That's barebones SSL. PGP with a 4096 bit key? Right...
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote an article about spooks and social networks a while back when I used to use Orkut... Many thought it was far fetched... Imagine that... Cached Article
This country has been pushing out some of the strangest laws. Did the justices consider their ruling is likely to make someone think before reporting corruption. First it was the Bush administrations illegal wiretaps via the NSA, even though its not necessarily new news, now this. So what the current government has is a one two punch... If a whisteblower wants to report possible illegal activity, they may face the wraith of being tracked by the NSA, then the wrath of a justice system that's catering to criminals...
I currently work at a communications company (VoIP, IP, PBX, etc.) and I would suggest that before IT managers dish out money for connections, they sit and analyze traffic patterns and do some QoS, policy based routing before kicking out money for a faster connection. Many companies dish out unnecessary money for faster connections when all they have to do is creative filtering beforehand. You take out 20 audio streamers and I guarantee you some of those bottlenecks won't be an issue. I used to work in a small office with about 40 employees. I had a business cable connection with 5mb speed and ran VoIP services, Internet services, etc. without issues. I also set up some cache servers and streamlined what went and came in first, to make sure business came first no matter what. Best thing to do before ordering a faster connection is to do an analysis of the current architecture and go from there.
10 REM Nerd Fight Club
20 REM packetmon
30 FOR X=10 TO 1 STEP -1
40 PRINT X;"Oh yea";
50 IF X<>1 THEN PRINT "!";
60 PRINT "take that,";X;"jackass";
70 IF X<>1 THEN PRINT "!";
80 PRINT "give in!"
90 NEXT
Strangely my brother in law and his coworkers have been doing this in NYC. They're not geeks though, they're all automechanics for Mercedes Benz. When I heard what they were doing I shrugged at their stupidity. There are more creative and energizing ways to vent frustrations, unload stress. What is going to happen when one co-worker goes overboard and really injures someone. By USA Today and other media outlets even giving these idiots the time of day, I can see where the younger crowds get the moronic ideas from. To each their own, but common sense dictactes that teens who see that article will likely take the "well if the adults can do it so can we...". What kind of example are those guys setting. As in the movie fight club, they shouldn't have talked about it. The least they could have done was some PPV "Geek Extreme Fighting... Microsoft Developers vs. Open Source Developers" ...
I agree, the current look is something akin to historical and functional. The new look does not look that "new". Rounded corners were replaced by sharp edges along with a new font. How exactly does this qualify for a new look?
A Bad Programmer is a Killer ... worth reading
The downside of this faith in technology soon becomes apparent, however. The following five examples graphically illustrate this.
a. When my brother was assigned captain to the then newly introduced Airbus A 310 - a plane which in the 1980s was considered a high-tech aircraft but today already appears antiquated - he told me about an incident that gave me pause: During the last stage of the final approach, a bolt of lightning struck the nose of the aircraft, damaging the plane's electronic equipment in the process. The confused on-board computer still had a suggestion to make, however, and flashed it on the screen: "Shut down engines."
Now no sensible pilot in the world would do that during this stage of flight, so "Colleague Computer's" suggestion was ignored. The incident itself makes one stop and think, however: Isn't there the danger that at some point in the future the on-board computer will not merely make a suggestion but go ahead and take action itself? Isn't there perhaps even a danger that one day, in keeping with the new philosophy I mentioned earlier, the pilot will only be able to intervene to the extent permitted by the computer? No matter how enthusiastically one may basically embrace technical progress, anyone who has retained any critical perspective at all will find it impossible to answer this question with an unequivocal "no". The following additional examples make it clear that a healthy dose of scepticism is by no means unwarranted.
b. On 26 June 1988, a brand-new Air France A 320 that was participating in an air show crashed in a wooded area in the Alsatian town of Habsheim near Mulhouse while performing an extremely low altitude fly by. When the pilot reached the end of the runway and wanted to power up the engines from minimum thrust to the thrust required for climb, the aircraft failed to react to his signal to commence the climb: Since the plane had been flying over the airfield at minimum speed (VLs) on the verge of a stall, the on-board computer refused to obey the command to lift the nose, for if the low thrust had remained unchanged, lifting the nose would have caused the plane to stall and then crash. The plane had not yet attained the higher speed necessary to avert a stall, however, because a jet engine needs several seconds to accelerate. Thus the A 320, controlled by computer logic and unresponsive to the pilot's will, flew into the adjoining woods.
c. On 14 September 1993, a Lufthansa A 320 crashed in Warsaw while landing on a wet runway in the rain. Due to the strong crosswind, the pilot tilted the plane slightly to the right just before touchdown; it thus touched down first on the right main landing gear and then on the left. As a consequence of the A 320's construction at the time, the spoilers (which changes the airflow round the wings, modifying the lift and thus bringing the plane down to the ground) did not work because the main landing gear on both sides were not fully weighted and the wheels - due in no small part to the aquaplaning effect - were not turning at the programmed speed. In short: According to the logic of the computer, the plane had not yet landed but was still turning. Thus the spoilers, which would create a braking effect, were not to be activated. At that time neither the thrust reversers nor the spoilers of an Airbus A 320 - in contrast to a Boeing 737, for instance - could be manually activated. As a result, the aircraft - braked too slowly and too late - raced towards the end of the runway. The human being (pilot) was helpless.
As if that were not enough, the on-board computer did one more thing: The pilot could not fully activate the thrust reversers to brake the plane because the engine performance had been reduced to a maximum of 71 percent of full reverse thrust in order to protect the engines. A captain friend of mine remarked: "That would not have happened with my B 737."
Conclusion: "The pilot, who in a crisis decides against protecting the engine
I recall reading about these dangers during the 9/11 investigation. Supposedly there were arguments leaning towards an automatic autopilot override for authorities to use in the event of something like 9/11 occurring again, the problem was just that... Too many problems and glitches with these systems. Airbus themselves have had these issues on a crash...
Mind you this accident was a while back, there were other issues with the systems overriding at the wrong time...
Most laypeople don't even understand what Bluetooth is let alone turning it off. This was a huge mistake assuming people understand why a port was open on a PC (135, 139) which gave way to massive worms and viruses. Even if you have Bluetooth turned off, that isn't the only avenue to spread a virus via cellular. Most phones nowadays have the capability to connect online somehow, so who's to say that someone couldn't craft in JSCRIPT or so.
Just because there aren't as many at this time doesn't mean it isn't likely to become a big issue in the future. What I perceive happening at some point is a rogue group creating viruses to steal contacts then selling those contacts. Imagine the market for say Pamela Anderson's phone list... Imagine one for say the phone list of the President. While doing network studies (CCDP) I thought about the dangers of a multicast worm/virus. It would work spoofing corrupt images say to MSN messenger or Yahoo messenger or any other IM client which is streaming ads... Once streamed an infected image would take over a victim machine... While the concept is theoretical it isn't that far fetched...
A desktop search engine enhances your Illumio experience. The DSE creates an index of the files (all or just the ones you designate) and Illumio uses this information to more efficiently filter requests so you receive more precisely matched recommendations. How can a search of files on my machine enhance someone else's opinion... "This is searching your friends' heads as reflected in what's on their computers," Ms. Dyson said. I have about 4 laptops at home. This happens to be my FreeBSD "anything goes machine" and I have my business laptop kept off of my home network. I have about 14+ years working experience in the IT field. On this machine I have nothing but music and art. Does this mean I would not qualify to answer questions about routers, session border controllers, VoIP equipment. Outside of what is known about this software, their words on privacy seem a little off-beat to me... "A simple search of what's on someone's machine will determine their level of expertise... I have another laptop my girlfriend uses to surf. Her cache is filled with "fashion" stuff... Will I be asked to partake based of her cache. Seems slightly ridiculous the more I think about it...
How could this model label someone an expert when all they're doing is an assessment and rendering an opinion. I can see this posing a problem if say Company X introduced fakesters into a social circle to hype up a product. For example, a social circle with MS workers will likely give negative influence to someone seeking to say purchase Redhat. Coca Cola... Pepsi, and the possibilities become endless. Sounds like an idea, but there is no guarantee of getting untainted honest results simply catered opinions.
The more I think about the term "Upgrade", I sit and wonder... How exactly are they "Upgrading" this? It can't be a physical upgrade obviously... Windows Update Upgrade!?! ... TCP/IP over Satellite? What kind of upgrade are they actually doing? An algorithmic upgrade? Since it would have to be a "transmitted" upgrade, how much could that actually cost think about it... It's not like NASA needs to pay some ISP for bandwidth in Space... Programming upgrades? How much could they possibly cost...
Why don't you just call Amnesty's Mel Herdon and ask him yourself? I don't get your post
<ecode>Registrant Name:Mel Herdon
Registrant Organization:Amnesty International UK
Registrant Street1:17-25 New Inn Yard
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:London
Registrant State/Province:
Registrant Postal Code:EC2A3EA
Registrant Country:GB
Registrant Phone:+44.2070331642
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:mel.herdon@amnesty.org.uk
Admin ID:tuX9qGlGSJx5L46v
Admin Name:Mel Herdon
Admin Organization:Amnesty International UK
Admin Street1:17-25 New Inn Yard
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:London
Admin State/Province:
Admin Postal Code:EC2A3EA
Admin Country:GB
Admin Phone:+44.2070331642
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:mel.herdon@amnesty.org.uk
Billing ID:tuX9qGlGSJx5L46v
Billing Name:Mel Herdon
Billing Organization:Amnesty International UK
Billing Street1:17-25 New Inn Yard
Billing Street2:
Billing Street3:
Billing City:London
Billing State/Province:
Billing Postal Code:EC2A3EA
Billing Country:GB
Billing Phone:+44.2070331642
Billing Phone Ext.:
Billing FAX:
Billing FAX Ext.:
Billing Email:mel.herdon@amnesty.org.uk
Tech ID:tuX9qGlGSJx5L46v
Tech Name:Mel Herdon
Tech Organization:Amnesty International UK
Tech Street1:17-25 New Inn Yard
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:London
Tech State/Province:
Tech Postal Code:EC2A3EA
Tech Country:GB
Tech Phone:+44.2070331642
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:mel.herdon@amnesty.org.uk
</ecode>
By now most people should know what will end up happening with this "Free(dumb)Network". Governments will disallow under harsh penalties usage of such a network. They will all claim security takes precedence over privacy. The problems with this current infrastructure aren't the lack of available tools to ensure privacy (PGP, SSL, S/MIME, VPN, etc), the problem is with the people who 1) don't understand the underlying need for privacy, 2) lack of standardization in implementing these tools. How niche would it be to create a "Secure ISP" based service where everything was encrypted on the wire before it left your network? Wouldn't be all that difficult but most common people wouldn't understand the need for it if it slapped them in the face.
Outside of that, what would end up happening with a "niche provider" would be the interaction with a "non niche" provider who wasn't providing security. They overlap and that will forever be a problem. Here in the US as we all have seen, what will likely happen in one of these Free(dumb)Networks is, the gov will spew the catch phrase Osama and all things terror and knock this notion down the drain. I'm a huge privacy advocate and believe in security to the fullest, but even I feel there is no need for an all inclusive "SecureNet". The typical network transaction does not warrant the network and application overhead needed. I do know however that when I need something said securely, processed securely, transacted securely, I don't rely on any protocol, person or program. Rather I rely on myself which is the main and most fundamental point on the security food chain.
As for the notion of a petition, it will go nowhere with this crapaganda of things terror related. To an extent I agree with some portions of governments pickings when it comes to security and privacy, but I also know governments' current actions are likely to create smarter criminals. This is evident in the computer security industry where viruses are now utilizing encryption schemes to hide themselves and their actions... Imagine clusters of terrorists doing the same... So to a degree I empathize with governments... They just don't have a clue, but at the same time their actions will be their stepping blocks.
Set back into each urinal is a pressure-sensitive display, which activates an interactive game when used. This game includes sounds and images, bringing entertainment value to where you'd least expect. It will most likely will be installed in airports and schools "with the functional purpose of improving hygiene". This might be good to potty train kids but I don't see its function in a rest stop. "Wait Bob, before you pull off the semi I scored a 3 pissing on Pac Man" ...
My comments show no sympathy for MS. If you think no company has wielded MS' influence then you've never heard of the Baby Bells, Big Blue, Tyco or SAIC.
A lot of lobbying money goes a long way. Right now Google is doing what Microsoft was sued for. If MS played its political cards correctly they'd be able to pull it off (the purchase of eBay). The problem with so called commissions and appointees judging what's right and wrong is that they can often be tainted with money and political influence. MS has deep reaches in Washington hence them getting away with e-Murder for years. What I find to be unmentioned is the foreign take on this. When it comes to matters such as corporations buying each other, I see little foreign intervention. I wonder how many "strawman" companies are under control of American interests end up coming back and buying out a company under a diff name. (Apologies if the explanation seems confusing...) MS tries to buy Company Z. Antitrust worries won't allow it. MS buys Company X in Europe. Company X buys Company Z. Company Z is liquidated back into MS. Happens all the time.
You're incorrect about what they actually want... The government hasn't made clear what information they want retained. They're not sure if they want entire sessions of just session information. I wonder if the government is going to subsidize monies for companies to build their infrastructures to accomodate the information the government is soliciting. If I were a small business and did not have the money in my budget to fill this task should I be fined?
Motley Fool staffers are just now realizing that Google is slowly running out of gas. Perhaps all this clickfraud exposure is leaving people wondering how could they get away with this Internet ponzi scam for so long... Luckily Google got a little smarter and quieted the naysayers a bit by doing the MS thing and buying all the competition around them. Smart move. MS bought all threats and consumed them into the heap of junk calls Windows. Google is doing the same slowly via different angles (Skype, Writely ... which competes with MS' Word, Andriod, etc). Anyhow, since its all opinionated, I wonder when will Google's true adclick fraud will truly come to fruition... Experts estimate the true value of what Google would owe would be a couple of BILLION in clickfraud.
So again... Fact someone REPORTED THE NAME OF VALERIE PLAME TO NOVAK. Let me type it in english. Someone reported the name Valerie Plame to NOVAK. Since you dared... 1, 2, 3 (Department of Energy, If left alone, Freeh warned, unbreakable encryption poses a threat to fighting crime through wiretapping., Finally... Case Study of HR 695: The Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act... This is where the government decided to place controls on encryption leaving the US because (guess what...) the government cannot break ciphers as easily as you might think. So when I use the term "Unbreakable Crypto", let me make it clear what I mean... Without the keys its impossible... With the keys... Good luck. It would 1) take too long 2) require more space then there currently is ON THE PLANET 3) by the time they cracked it, it would likely mean nothing.
128-bit encryption: 0.25 sextillion years. That's barebones SSL. PGP with a 4096 bit key? Right...