121–130 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? Surely if they started killing innocent people you could arrest them. The question is what gives them the authority to use these tactics? Wiretapping laws?
They started killing innocent people very early in the government's history and have yet to stop.
> "Mozilla confirmed the code exploited a critical memory management vulnerability in Firefox that was publicly reported on June 25, and is fixed in the latest version of the browser." Will Rust help eliminate the problem of buffer overflows and other memory related hacks?
This was actually a use after free vulnerability, not a buffer overflow.
Of course, this is assuming Rust and Servo ever gain enough traction to build a viable browser; they're still at an early enough stage to be vulnerable to the problems lots of young, ambitious projects have, of taking on too much at once to ever be done enough for production use, interest petering out and never quite getting to the point of something widely usable (like Perl 6).
I don't even know anymore. We're gonna have to raise the bar on what it means to be a "tinfoil hatter"; the original definition has become reality. "Trust no one! Suspect EVERYTHING!" , I can say today without sounding crazy. Also, remember this? http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/blogs/browse/2011/... ....hmm, I wonder if....
> I don't even know anymore. We're gonna have to raise the bar on what it means to be a "tinfoil hatter"; the original definition has become reality. That's sort of where I've gotten to this summer. It's really frustrating and saddening. Although mind-control waves still aren't, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, a thing.
Some people have compared malware with guns. This is to me a very bad comparison, since guns actually have legal usage like hunting or self defense.
A better example would be a under cover cop, selling real drugs to real people with the intent to impress a local drug cartel. It has to my knowledge never happen, but it would be interesting to know if the cop could be held liable if someone dies from a overdose from those drugs.
Let say that a police virus spreads out of control, and infects millions of computers. What if this specific firefox exploit get copied by a botnet, and is used to execute credit card stealing software on unsuspected users. How liable can the police become when millions of people are effected? I really have no clue.
The use of malware in police enforcement is truly a unique event in society. At what other point in history has police distributed a completly illegal tool onto unsuspected and non-targeted civilians? It feels like a total unexplored area of liability laws, so I look with excitement to when the first lawsuit starts. Some people have compared malware with guns. This is to me a very bad comparison, since guns actually…
The use of malware in police enforcement is truly a unique event in society. At what other point in history has police distributed a completly illegal tool onto unsuspected and non-targeted civilians? It feels like a total unexplored area of liability laws, so I look with excitement to when the first lawsuit starts. Some people have compared malware with guns. This is to me a very bad comparison, since guns actually…
For quite a while. Law enforcement have installed physical surveilance and tracking devices since as long as they have existed - and unsuspecting innocents have been caught on those tapes and recorders.
It's also a question of whether those tools are illegal - there may be laws against them , but the government can get special permissions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you assume that the techniques used for something most would assume to be reasonable will not ever be used in less desirable ways?
Police "techniques" involve guns, tear gas, helicopters, etc. At any time the police could in theory fly to your house, launch tear gas into your windows, and shoot you in the head as you run out. And I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly worried about that happening to the point where I want to take guns, tear gas, and helicopters away from the police. This is the FBI taking down criminals engaging in a clear…
I am worried about government agencies intercepting my traffic / communications because it does happen, it's really hard to find out unless you know what you're looking for, and they don't have a warrant on every American citizen that happens to get caught.
This is actually a pretty good attack. The only problem I see is the usefulness of the evidence that the attack gathers. Visiting an FBI warning over Tor isn't illegal, so appearing in some child-porn-user database because you were curious about how the exploit worked is a little disturbing, given the stigma child porn has. I'd also like to see the legal theory they used to seize control of someone's computer. Did a…
It most likely falls under the FBI's legal wiretapping abilities.
It sounds to me as being outside the FBI's legal wiretapping abilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the way Bruce Schneier is now using GPG Which way is that? Also, from your Tinfoil Hat Linux link, this idea is hilariously awesome: Keystroke monitoring — THL has gpggrid, a wrapper for GPG that lets you use a video game style character entry system instead of typing in your passphrase. Keystroke loggers get a set of grid points, not your passphrase. I wonder if it might be possible to implement that idea into other…
Air gapped with new hardware: "Since I started working with the Snowden documents, I bought a new computer that has never been connected to the internet. If I want to transfer a file, I encrypt the file on the secure computer and walk it over to my internet computer, using a USB stick. To decrypt something, I reverse the process. This might not be bulletproof, but it's pretty good." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2…