51–60 of 182 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is why I'm glad my main OS is linux. Not impossible for NSA to get in but a lot more difficult.
I seriously doubt linux presents a challenge for them. Think about all the web servers that are linux, you think they don't have an army of experts that can pwn those OS's?
None, unless you install them and activate them? What sort of desktop distro comes with pre-configured webservers?
I'm only half joking.
The NSA, breaking into US computers, is violating the Third Amendment, in my opinion. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. Very frustrating as I work with a Microsoft-oriented company at the moment. Any mention of this to their architectural team results in nothing short of "mwuhahaha you're talking shit". There is some weird universal trust there that really makes no sense at all. To add insult to injury they don't log, don't have an IDS and don't have a clue stick to hit themselves with. Their funeral!
MS's program to provide information on upcoming security issues to large customers isn't anything sinister. It's an obvious step to achieve a better overall security by allowing larger users to mitigate damage before a patch is available. You can spin it as a secret NSA-program, but I don't think that's very useful as this program does legitimately help a ton of users. (Not that it really would excuse things, but I'd…
I've worked for a few large European financial orgs over the years and MS will not disclose issues early to them despite begging and piles of money. We're talking 50k+ employees here.
However DoD connected companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon are right in there without an invite.
You just get the feeling there's something off when relationships are made like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luckily, our founding fathers built in a way to achieve the same effects as a revolution without any violence. If you were to start an armed insurrection, the government would be totally justified in ending you. Not a smart decision given today's level of technology. It was through sheer luck that the American revolution worked at all: the British commanders were so incredibly incompetent that they checkmated themsel…
Firstly, your "founding fathers" - ha now there's a joke. Do you think anyone respects those amendments? Nope. If they thought that, you wouldn't be stocked up with weapons. And we all know how effective that technology is at ending all those pesky terrorists with their zip guns and IEDs...
A key problem I see, that I used to have, and learned from my mistake, is that the checks and balances system works.
Yes, you see the executive branch overstepping its bounds. Lots of people getting picked up. However, the judicial branch is finding the charges untenable.
It's not easy nor automatic, and costs a lot of time and research and arguing, but those amendments are still pretty damn strong. Arguments directly to them are handled in the Supreme Court all the time.
There are some dings against the 4th as of late, but don't give up and invest the time and research and arguments. Put your focus on the judicial branch and increase their power to put down bad behavior by the executive branch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it's called a revolution at which point we storm the bases and burn the data centres and monitoring stations to the ground. But, as Huxley was so keen to point out, that's not going to happen when people are staring at Honey Boo Boo and Hollyoaks.
During a revolution, those organizations would be burning their own data because when those organizations lose power the data becomes a liability rather than an asset to them. It becomes evidence of their crimes. When the Berlin Wall fell, the Stasi began burning and shredding everything they could. German citizens stormed their buildings and much of the documents were saved, so that the crimes of the Stasi could be…
The NSA, breaking into US computers, is violating the Third Amendment, in my opinion. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Perhaps if research were to show that "soldier" could be more broadly interpreted to mean "agent of security," you could really get some momentum going for this line of though. After all, we aren't required to keep other pieces of security enforcement in our homes, such as turrets on the roof controlled by the government.
Keep it up.
After a while all these news items about the NSA and GCHQ can seem a bit too much, but not if we take a step back and really understand the enormity of it all. The NSA and its cohorts set up fake Facebook websites, spoof security certificates, secretly record webcam streams, vacuum up everything they can lay their hands on etc. Meanwhile the CIA coolly wipes hundreds of documents from the machines of those who are in…
They will: it costs a lot of money to keep data alive.
And it is a shame, NSA data for research purpose should be put under the UNO protection: - it holds lower bits of informations interlaced with the "big data" like how flu is propagating; - we could analyse causality chains and propagation of ideas (the impact of culture); - we could see corruptions effects, measure it and decide if it worths the price; - we can record the variation and evolution of natural langage/style;
These data are a treasure, the should be opened after X years, but for economic reason, they will be deleted.
After a while all these news items about the NSA and GCHQ can seem a bit too much, but not if we take a step back and really understand the enormity of it all. The NSA and its cohorts set up fake Facebook websites, spoof security certificates, secretly record webcam streams, vacuum up everything they can lay their hands on etc. Meanwhile the CIA coolly wipes hundreds of documents from the machines of those who are in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
During a revolution, those organizations would be burning their own data because when those organizations lose power the data becomes a liability rather than an asset to them. It becomes evidence of their crimes. When the Berlin Wall fell, the Stasi began burning and shredding everything they could. German citizens stormed their buildings and much of the documents were saved, so that the crimes of the Stasi could be…
This time they'll just encrypt everything.