241–250 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a side note, rouge = red, rogue = villain/scoundrel/etc... I hate being that guy but it happened twice and triggered my have to post response. Tshuß!
Just a side note, "Ts ch üß!" = bye/cheers/etc; "Tshuß!" = I can't spell German. I hate being that guy but … wait, I'm lying, I love it, but I normally try to restrain myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think of it from the executives perspective: Option A: keep mouth shut, make a shit ton of money Option B: become a martyr, face prison time People like Snowden are rare.
>>People like Snowden are rare. In all honesty, Snowden is a 30 year old single dude, and as far as I know, he doesn't have kids. Do you think he would have done what he did if he had a family to look after? In my opinion a person's first responsibility is to their family. So yeah, if you're married (like these executives probably are) and you're facing the choice between option A and option B, you should absolutely…
What is the likelihood that anyone will face investigation or prosecution over this?
Wikipedia is updated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(security_firm)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is, imo, very murky but as I understand it: NSA approached Nacchio and Qwest to do what they were doing with AT&T and Verizon. Qwest had previously helped the NSA intercept all comms in Salt Lake City during the Olympics but told the NSA they weren't interested in cooperating. Nacchio sells some stock. Qwest is suddenly dropped as the favored vendor for a huge government contract leading to a drop in Qwest'…
Read the indictment. Nacchio was convicted along with several other executives of running a pump and dump scam. Despite being specifically prohibited from trading based on insider information, Nacchio first became aware that their earnings guidance was "a huge stretch", that to meet them would involve growing revenue from a line of business that had been failing to grow revenue and that had actually been underperform…
Yes. (Edited for reasons)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best defence is a good offence.
Not if you're a 800-pound gorilla against 30kg monkeys... Then offense is just offence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best defence is a good offence.
Asymmetric warfare with multiple adversaries doesn't work that way. For example, Stuxnet did not make U.S power plants safe from malicious attackers. I recommend reading Ralph Langner's op-ed in the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/04/do-cyberatta...
As for the article, it claims that Stuxnet "opened the Pandora box", but it did nothing of the sort. Stuxnet by itself did not enable anything that wasn't possible before - it was possible for malicious actors to create attacks on US networked infrastructure, and it still is. Stuxnet changed nothing there. Criminals and security professionals know the possibilities for a long time. And are using them. Making it sound as if the evil US has again spoiled the paradise for everyone makes no sense, and the author, being the expert in the field, should have known better, but looks like his political views overcame his professional judgement here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't be a fool. You would let your children go hungry and live a worse life (directly because of your actions) out of principle? It's not simple. Having a family can be a beautiful thing. Not having one and spilling the beans on something morally reprehensible can be too.
>Don't be a fool. Classy. >You would let your children go hungry and live a worse life No. Read what I wrote. The words are right there. If the choice is "have children and commit evil to feed them" and "don't have children and don't commit evil", I choose the former. As should, I think, any right-thinking person. The question is probabilistic. What are the chances that the former happens? What are the chances that t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A catchy sound byte, but in almost all practical situations, the best defence is avoiding conflict. In fights: flee. In international affairs: diplomacy.
That is disasterous. That logic is why Chaimberlain allowed Hitler to get more and more and more power. ("Surely they'll agree to peace if we just let them have Poland.") It is also why my generation (I'm 27) will eventually have to fight a nuclear war that pits Iran against Israel and possibly the US. That war will potentially kill millions. And whose fault will it be? Obama's and Bush's. They will (if history is ju…
World War 2 started when Germany decided to invade Poland in late 1939. Germany was never given Poland.
You get even the most basic history wrong and then proceed to say that Bush and Obama are historically equivalent to Stalin and Hitler?
Never let facts get in the way of a good dogma.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same influence approach ($10m to choose a supposedly okay algorithm) would work just as well for most similar non-American companies, it isn't claimed that RSA did this because of some mandate which would fail if they'd be headquartered in, say, France.
Why keep the contract secret though?
It's just as if an antivirus company to accept a contract with a major adware distributor to keep their products marked as appropriate - legal, but best kept secret.