121–130 of 182 posts
>computer servers I've been seeing this pattern a lot in nontechnical news recently, and have always been baffled as to what other kind of server there is (short of some basic network service implemented purely in logic gates, I guess).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This time they'll just encrypt everything.
Yeah, and destroying the key will be much easier than destroying paper by the ton.
(And remember in your home and biz life, if you do whole disk encryption, you need to hibernate or shut down to get your disk/data back into its encrypted state.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more complicated than that. ----->[ good times ]---->[ hard times ] ---> [fascism] --\ ^ | \-------------------[revolution] Revolution merely starts the cycle again. We'll always end up with the KGB, Stasi, NSA, GCHQ, CIA etc so you have to deconstruct society regularly to flush it out. We're stuck in a pretty long loop at the moment just verging on hard times. Edit: the "good times" above is optional.
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…
Through all of the news articles and the analyses I have read, I still don't understand how exactly all of this works. I understand the MITM concept, but the Man-On-The-Side parts boggle m: "When a target attempts to log in to the social media site, the NSA transmits malicious data packets that trick the target’s computer into thinking they are being sent from the real Facebook. By concealing its malware within what…
It seems to me that they are sending out packets identifying themselves as facebook. If you're not using SSL this is expected to be possible. If you are using SSL to communicate with FB then it's likely that the NSA has the private keys for FB's SSL certificates.
What interests me more, and what the above poster may be asking about is this part: "By concealing its malware within what looks like an ordinary Facebook page, the NSA is able to hack into the targeted computer".
This implies a true drive-by exploit - one not requiring any user interaction. Most of the Windows malware is actually installed by the user - they're tricked into clicking something, thinking it's anti-virus, funny video, "accelerate your internet" or some other innocuous thing. The no-user-action exploits generally have been workable only for plugins, particularly Flash or Java, which the user has allowed to run without any filters.
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…
Hasn't there been enough evidence that the system the founding fathers built in has been compromised to the point of irrelevance? What you have today is an illusion of the freedom and the "equal and impartial justice under the law". http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/23/burn-the-fucking-system-to...
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…
> I, for one, continue to be excited about our drone overlords. Genuine question: why do hackers and obviously smart persons believe in this cargo-cult "founding fathers" concept? As if some guidelines set by some 18th century guys are the be all end all in running a state or even mean much after centuries of "interpretation" and changing conditions (including technology). Case in point 1: most of the things people n…
However this idea of restrictions placed on a democracy to keep the majority from oppressing minorities is worthless without actual rules. How do you perform the initial population of this set of specially privileged rules then?
Think of it like a problem of bootstrapping trust. A pure democracy cannot be trusted (as a pure democracy trivially allows/enables the oppression of minorities), but non-pure democracies must be conceived and implemented somehow. Can you trust a constitutional democracy that was created by a pure democracy? Arguably no, since the pure democracy cannot be trusted. Can you trust a constitutional democracy that was created by a small set of arbitrary people? Again arguably no, since arbitrary people pulled from the general population wouldn't be any more trustworthy than a pure democracy. Can you trust a constitutional democracy created by a small set of particular people? If you trust those particular people, then perhaps you can trust the constitutional democracy created by them.
People want to trust their government, which leads to them wanting to trust in broad terms the general concepts and ideas that this particular founding group had.
Personally I think it's all shit. A constitutional democracy does not resolve the tyranny of the masses, it only pretends to. Democracy itself is nothing more than "might makes right" combined with a primitive notion of MAD (with anarchy and civil war being the boogieman, rather than nuclear war). Constitutional democracy is good for little more than lying to ourselves to make ourselves feel better about democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's kind of interesting to think about. Remember the hullabaloo just after the Boston bomber lit off the bomb but wasn't caught yet? Imagine all of that societal rage focused on a small group of people who have started an armed conflict and killed a few policemen, and you can imagine how quickly that group will be annihilated.
When I think about Dorner or the Boston bombers, I think about how much chaos they caused, and the fact that they evaded regional manhunts for days while accomplishing their goal. To contrast your observation: Imagine what a group of dedicated, intelligent agents could do to stir things up.
There is no terrorist. The system, the agents of the USG have won the coup on freedom.
They now exist only to preserve their power, and this is the reason why apologists for the deep state are worse than fools
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
And we all know how effective that technology is at ending all those pesky terrorists with their zip guns and IEDs... Those people have been indoctrinated since birth to see us as evil invaders. Some of their religions have baked in the idea that it's good to die in order to kill invaders. And we've sometimes acted like an evil invader. (See Blackwater atrocities, etc.) It's an invalid comparison because our populati…
Blackwater!? That we were there at all was an invasion based on a lie and a tragedy of convenience. 9/11, strong connection to Afghanistan and a Saudi/Yemen family ... let's invade Iraq! I think we're still searching for the real weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...
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…
I'm really, really trying not to be snarky or offensive here, but does anybody else think people using the phrase "founding fathers" sound like a part of a cult?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, and destroying the key will be much easier than destroying paper by the ton.
So when you storm the barricades make sure that you keep the electricity on , so that all those disks and data will be decrypted at that moment. (And remember in your home and biz life, if you do whole disk encryption, you need to hibernate or shut down to get your disk/data back into its encrypted state.)
The only way to take out a TLA and seize the incriminating data is swiftly and without warning. With warning times on the order of minutes, I don't think this is possible politically or otherwise.
The best we can hope for is to shut them down, and the best we can do afterwards is punish those responsible in absence of specific evidence against them (but I don't think that we have the guts necessary to do that. However as a real-world example of that sort of response, consider the show trial and execution of Nicolae Ceaușescu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu)