31–40 of 111 posts
Let's just keep writing operating systems and security-sensitive code in C. I'm sure this time we'll have even better development practices. This time we'll do better code reviews. This time the static analysis tools will catch more problems. If we all close our eyes and wish really hard we can avoid inconveniencing a few programmers, save a few CPU cycles, and keep using C. After all, the performance is totally wort…
Let's just keep writing operating systems and security-sensitive code in C. I'm sure this time we'll have even better development practices. This time we'll do better code reviews. This time the static analysis tools will catch more problems. If we all close our eyes and wish really hard we can avoid inconveniencing a few programmers, save a few CPU cycles, and keep using C. After all, the performance is totally wort…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly unconstitutional according to whom? It is valid to criticize the state secrets defense which keeps the NSA out of court – it's not valid to unilaterally decide what is and is not clearly unconstitutional.
If it were all a matter of interpretation we wouldn't need an actual written constitution. If it were all up to judges the constitution wouldn't be on display and would be written in Latin or somesuch. But the constitution is public, readable and fairly plain. Now maybe the constitution is outdated. Maybe it should be changed. I don't know that. But from what the constitution reads at this point a number of these mea…
This is false, given that there is no settled jurisprudence until interpretation happens. If the Constitution said "there may be no dog-walking on Thursday", the constitutionality of dog-walking on Thursday would rest entirely upon the decisions of the judiciary with regards to its constitutionality (and this is important, as the court can functionally ignore provisions of the constitution under accepted judicial doctrine; being lashed to two-hundred-year-old thinking is not an inherent good and so plenty of escape hatches have been created over time).
> But from what the constitution reads at this point a number of these measures are manifestly unconstitutional
You speak imprecisely. You think (and maybe I do, too) that those measures are unconstitutional. Until they are ruled unconstitutional by a court (and the decision upheld on appeal, ruled on by the Supreme Court, etc. etc.), the most you can realistically say is that something might be unconstitutional. That's how checks and balances work--only the judiciary can say one way or the other, and that's by design.
Let's just keep writing operating systems and security-sensitive code in C. I'm sure this time we'll have even better development practices. This time we'll do better code reviews. This time the static analysis tools will catch more problems. If we all close our eyes and wish really hard we can avoid inconveniencing a few programmers, save a few CPU cycles, and keep using C. After all, the performance is totally wort…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Against Americans? Yes. The rule of law demands it.
That point is so important that I hesitated to add a distraction but I think it's also worth remembering that the NSA has a defensive role, too. It's been much neglected in recent decades but the entire country would be better off if the NSA helped patch things. They're hoping some suspected bad guy doesn't get patched but odds are high that many Americans, particularly important IP-heavy businesses, are going to get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were all a matter of interpretation we wouldn't need an actual written constitution. If it were all up to judges the constitution wouldn't be on display and would be written in Latin or somesuch. But the constitution is public, readable and fairly plain. Now maybe the constitution is outdated. Maybe it should be changed. I don't know that. But from what the constitution reads at this point a number of these mea…
> If it were all a matter of interpretation we wouldn't need an actual written constitution. This is false, given that there is no settled jurisprudence until interpretation happens. If the Constitution said "there may be no dog-walking on Thursday", the constitutionality of dog-walking on Thursday would rest entirely upon the decisions of the judiciary with regards to its constitutionality (and this is important, as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were all a matter of interpretation we wouldn't need an actual written constitution. If it were all up to judges the constitution wouldn't be on display and would be written in Latin or somesuch. But the constitution is public, readable and fairly plain. Now maybe the constitution is outdated. Maybe it should be changed. I don't know that. But from what the constitution reads at this point a number of these mea…
> If it were all a matter of interpretation we wouldn't need an actual written constitution. This is false, given that there is no settled jurisprudence until interpretation happens. If the Constitution said "there may be no dog-walking on Thursday", the constitutionality of dog-walking on Thursday would rest entirely upon the decisions of the judiciary with regards to its constitutionality (and this is important, as…
But I think you might be missing my point. The constitution is on display in the nations capital. Copies hang on the walls of courtrooms around the country. It is taught to school children. It is (in theory) the supreme law of the land.
If it were meant strictly for closed door interpretation by qualified individuals I doubt this would be the case. It would be like the bible during the dark ages. Only highly trained and qualified priests would be able to correctly understand it and pass their deciphering on to the masses.
The point is that we live in a democracy. We are entitled to read the agreement we are supposed to be living under and to ascertain that it is (or isn't) being followed. In theory, (if anyone gave a shit), we can then elect people who will appoint judges who actually follow the document rather than weaseling around it for who knows what purpose while keeping the masses in the dark.
Now, maybe the system is in need of overhaul for new times. But that is how it is supposed to work. Don't _ever_ feel you aren't qualified to ascertain an injustice or an infraction of the rules. And please don't suggest others don't have this right either. Down that path lies darkness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That point is so important that I hesitated to add a distraction but I think it's also worth remembering that the NSA has a defensive role, too. It's been much neglected in recent decades but the entire country would be better off if the NSA helped patch things. They're hoping some suspected bad guy doesn't get patched but odds are high that many Americans, particularly important IP-heavy businesses, are going to get…
Okay, so let's say American businesses can't get hacked so easily by nationstates and have their secrets stolen. Also, Iran has successfully tested a nuclear bomb. Is that the world you'd prefer?
Does the EFF really expect the NSA to publicly detail every time they've used an exploit offensively?
Against Americans? Yes. The rule of law demands it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That point is so important that I hesitated to add a distraction but I think it's also worth remembering that the NSA has a defensive role, too. It's been much neglected in recent decades but the entire country would be better off if the NSA helped patch things. They're hoping some suspected bad guy doesn't get patched but odds are high that many Americans, particularly important IP-heavy businesses, are going to get…
Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive? I was under the impression that the NSA publishes security advisories all the time?