191–200 of 210 posts
It's only a matter of time until the government starts reigning in the internet even more than they already have - and we have idiots like LulzSec to largely thank for it.
I will say this for these folks, they seem to have gone 'all in.' One of the interesting thing about politics is how hard it is to change things. To get a bill passed or an amendment added you need to get other politicians on your side, you need a compelling plan, and then you need lots of follow through. Controversy is to politics like energy is to chemical reactions. The more controversy you have around it increase…
"Basically terrorists who don't have a special interest group or political action committee (PAC) in place to harness the energy created by the terrorist acts for durable change are unsuccessful at making any change." The guy who wired the lead 9/11 hijacker 100k, presumably to pay for the 9/11 attacks, had breakfast with the Bush administration the morning of 9/11. If that isn't access then what is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Basically terrorists who don't have a special interest group or political action committee (PAC) in place to harness the energy created by the terrorist acts for durable change are unsuccessful at making any change." The guy who wired the lead 9/11 hijacker 100k, presumably to pay for the 9/11 attacks, had breakfast with the Bush administration the morning of 9/11. If that isn't access then what is?
Do you have a reliable source for that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Ahmed#Removal_from_ISI
http://kkak.typepad.com/blog/2011/05/death-of-bin-laden-may-...
The kicker is that Ahmed had breakfast with almost all of the senior Bush administration the day before, the day of, and the two days after 9/11. He actually watched the attacks on TV with Porter Goss and Bob Graham.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might depend on your definition of negligent. Imagine building out a city, streets, alleyways, highways, etc. The imagine paying one guy to put up all the street signs, paint the lanes on the roads and highways, tow broken down cars, and handle street cleaning duties. When a wreck happens because a particular intersection was missing stop signs, would you consider that one guy negligent?
Yup. Him or her and his/her employer. That is according to the law. Negligence is merely falling below the standard of the reasonably competent sign poster/programmer/doctor/ etc.
I'm not trying to defend the IT folks who do a terrible job of security for municipal/state governments, but in my experience there's a lot more work to be done than resources provided to do it.
"...describe the use of informants to infiltrate various gangs, cartels, motorcycle clubs, Nazi groups, and protest movements." FWIW, this probably means some people are going to die.
I will say this for these folks, they seem to have gone 'all in.' One of the interesting thing about politics is how hard it is to change things. To get a bill passed or an amendment added you need to get other politicians on your side, you need a compelling plan, and then you need lots of follow through. Controversy is to politics like energy is to chemical reactions. The more controversy you have around it increase…
This makes some sense because, as they say, and I'm paraphrasing here, you can paint shit gold but it's still the same shit. If a century of playing by their rules has brought us no closer to resolving the corruption then its not far-fetched to say that the playing field is skewed by it's very nature.
Disclaimer: I don't advocate this approach but I agree with the general assessment of the situation. Personally, I think that it would be more effective to go Gandhi on their asses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just SharePoint. Crawling a machine for special files is pretty simple. Here is a little script I used for a while. Could be modified to look for file headers(more specific) but who is going to change a .doc to a .pdf for security reasons? #!/usr/bin/python import os,shutil exts = [".txt",".doc",".docx",".xls",".xlsx",".ppt",".pptx"] startpath = os.environ['HOMEDRIVE'] def find(none, directory, filenames): for fi…
So how many law enforcement agencies have the Python interpreter installed on their machine? Of course you can always py2exe this, write it in C/C++ (/C#). Hacking is easy, it just takes time and dedication.
That's exactly what I did! You can do the same through cmd, but most machines do not have permissions for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of cops are former Marines, soldiers, etc. Im guessing you've never hung around with guys like this? I was a Marine for ten years; stuff like this gets shared and no one's giggling about it. You are definitely making a mountain out of a molehill. I say that based on personal experience.
What's the point in sharing it in this setting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I enjoy being critical of the government as much as the next man, but I think a comment like the one you just made really deserves a [citation needed]. I'm not saying I don't believe you (there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing by UK security forces in the past, particularly abroad), just that I'd be interested to see your sources.
Most of the deaths are due to negligence on the part of the police. The concern is that this is intentional negligence which is never properly investigated. The IPCC rarely rule against the police however the legal system are less biased, if it gets that far. 30 seconds googling... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/18/ukcrime.prisonsandp... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinso... http://ww…
But your assertion that "they are recorded as suicides and the doctor and coroner are police appointed ones" suggests that there is a significant cover-up operation and that it heavily involves the Freemasons. I wasn't aware of the number of police who are masons (the article you linked to was interesting) but I don't see a verifiable connection between that and any alleged cover-ups.
I'm not saying that there definitely aren't a significant number of cover-ups involving masons, just that I'm not aware of any credible evidence that suggests that it is the case. If you have some, I'd be interested in seeing it.
I will say this for these folks, they seem to have gone 'all in.' One of the interesting thing about politics is how hard it is to change things. To get a bill passed or an amendment added you need to get other politicians on your side, you need a compelling plan, and then you need lots of follow through. Controversy is to politics like energy is to chemical reactions. The more controversy you have around it increase…
To simplify the argument you presented - 'they need to use the system while simultaneously attacking it'. This makes the assumption that they want to preserve and modify the current system as opposed to outright decimating it. One way of framing their campaign is that they are basically doing what the Allies did to the Nazis, which is to say, bombing without restraint in the hopes of leaving nothing but a pile of rub…
I understand how some people are frustrated by what seems like an unchangeable system (not saying that you are, just an example) when in fact it is quite changeable. If you have the time and energy to learn how to 'politic' changing the system becomes a question of scale much like if you understand how compilers are built changing GCC becomes a question of scale. New system call interface for an embedded architecture? Pretty straight forward. Changing operator precedence and making integers 37 bits long? A harder thing (still doable, its just code, but the scale is larger because you touch more of the code in the compiler).
So to put your comment in 'tech' terms and continuing my gcc analogy, you posit that the goal isn't to change the compiler since that is too hard, rather delete every copy of the source code everywhere and every executable so that folks will have write a new gcc/binutils from scratch. That way the new compiler and binutils will be better than what we have today.