Live data from Hacker News

WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

wired.com

71–74 of 74 posts

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#71
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's facile to assume a moral equivalence between one side accidentally killing civilians in situations where it's extremely difficult to isolate the enemy, and the other side hijacking jetliners and flying them into office buildings.

Agreed. But please do note that the Taliban didn't fly any aircraft into buildings. The ones who did were Saudis. The Taliban want to kick the invader out, just like the Vietcong 40 years ago. If you think the war in Afghanistan is motivated by the desire to kill Al Qaeda, you need to read a thing or two on geopolitics.

"The ones who did were Saudis."

Al-Qaeda are about as Saudi as the IRA is British. The people who make that argument, and forget the close ties between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the first place, are the ones who need to read a thing or two on geopolitics.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#72
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But please do note that the Taliban didn't fly any aircraft into buildings. The ones who did were Saudis. The Taliban want to kick the invader out, just like the Vietcong 40 years ago. If you think the war in Afghanistan is motivated by the desire to kill Al Qaeda, you need to read a thing or two on geopolitics.

"The ones who did were Saudis." Al-Qaeda are about as Saudi as the IRA is British. The people who make that argument, and forget the close ties between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the first place, are the ones who need to read a thing or two on geopolitics.

[deleted]

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#73
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The ones who did were Saudis." Al-Qaeda are about as Saudi as the IRA is British. The people who make that argument, and forget the close ties between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the first place, are the ones who need to read a thing or two on geopolitics.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#74
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you determine if the transparent and inspectable filtering program is operating correctly if you only have access to the output and none of the inputs? You'd need all of the inputs, and at that point, you just have access to all the information anyway, and wouldn't need the program to do the filtering.

Reliable computing isn't just for NASA; it also works when an individual codebase may have been designed to "malfunction." Instead of a single machine, you contract several independent, mutually untrustworthy parties to implement (open, inspectable) machines, with an architecture that takes votes from all machines into account. You could then spit out a log of (hash of input, vote) pairs from each machine to see that…

You'd need at least one trustworthy party because you can not trust the mutually untrustworthy parties to not give similarly faked logs.

If the goal is secrecy, increasing the number of parties that have access to the inputs undermines that, especially if they are untrustworthy, even if they have "contracts".

While the solution you've outlined may be mathematically sound, I don't think it is very pragmatic.

Post reply on HN