Was Phyllis more shocked that nephew Tom knows something about alcohol, or by the early 1990's revelation that her son Bruce is gay.
More importantly. Would anyone who disagrees with, or agrees with Phyllis Schlafly's politics assume that she had some connection with a Schlafly beer or other alcoholic beverage?
How would your name be 'tarnished' by the perfectly legal acts of another individual whose politics may be different than yours?
If they got actual cybersecurity, then they would only be ripping it out again once Comey and others get their way of removing all encryption and cybersecurity from the US part of the internet.
Adding real cybersecurity to the DNC now might undermine both parties' objective of taking away everyone else's cybersecurity.
Maybe the price, maybe mostly already paid in loss of top people, is not so high as to warrant getting actual cybersecurity. Just look like you're outraged and trying to do something about it. Appoint a board full of know nothing politicians.
They're just trying to help police / FBI get into people's cars without a trace. For example, when you are in your car, the door is locked and the police are screaming / demanding to search your car for no stated reason.
If Apple would be as cooperative as VW, then the police / FBI could search your phone too.
And VW's backdoor unlock technique would never be abused. Hear that Apple! (sarcasm)
Re: Re: Does real security require cryptographic functions?
I left out an option:
The government could come up with, what it calls, the most secure encryption key ever. This will keep us all safer. Everyone must start using this new, secure key as their encryption key at once! Anyone not using it is obviously up to no good. They aren't using this 'secure' key, and therefore are trying to weaken all of our security. Including our IoT gadgets.
(I think I can actually imagine Comey and McCain and others actually saying something like that with a straight face.)
Similarly, the government has a new physical key that everyone must start using for all of their locks. Homes, automobiles, etc. Copies of this will will be mass duplicated and distributed immediately.
But it's cheap enough that it might be a gamble that is worth taking. Downside, lose $350. Upside, win a gazillion dollars, of which you get some portion. Or at least win a settlement to make this nonsense go away.
I remember a movie, I think it was Hollow Man (an invisible man plot, staring Kevin Bacon). But I can't swear to it at the moment. A prominent line in the theme music, often repeated throughout the movie, kept setting off recognition in my head that it sounded like the most of the first line of the old hymn "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God". But the music would go a different direction before it got to the end of the music of the first line. But it was at least several bars worth of striking similarity.
Was the movie theme music inspired by the one line from the hymn? I highly doubt it.
Can you imagine the negative effect it would have on the size of executive bonuses if effective competition were allowed by anyone who is not primarily motivated to provide the worst possible service at the highest possible cost? And only provide acceptable service at very high cost.
Does real security require cryptographic functions?
Cryptographic functions. Cryptographic strength secure hash functions. Cryptographic strength random number generators. Public / private key encryption. Digital signatures. Certificate chains with lists of CAs and revocation lists. Can any of this be done without encryption?
Should the government ban encryption, and thus keep everything insecure?
Should the government allow only weak encryption with, say, 16 bit keys? Nobody could possibly brute force that!
Should the government mandate crypto keys be kept in escrow with the government -- for your safety! Think of the children!
Should the government mandate that nerds invent a secure system that can be cracked by the government on demand? (Can they actually say this with a straight face?)
What about magical golden keys? (But the previous two items cover 'golden keys'.)
What about RIAA / MPAA style third party liability? If someone breaks into your home, no matter what brand of system you have, it must be the fault of (1) your ISP and (2) Google!
So the FBI's software looks at your network for specific traffic, or looks into your computer files for specific malware, and / or looks into your computer's memory for specific malware in memory.
So far, I don't have a big problem here -- although I trust the government in my computer even less than I trust the malware.
Now the question. What is plain view? Even if the FBI injects a software payload into the computer's memory to look for very specific things; what is 'plain view' as far as anything else I have on my computer?
It's not like this injected software has artificial intelligence and can say: oh, my, that's pr0n! Or that file has a very anti-government file name (gasp!).
The only way ANYTHING would be in 'plain view' is if they start exhaustively searching the computer for things. And those searches would be by nature of a search, directed at specific targets.
Or would the FBI have a live agent interacting with the FBI's malware, so the agent could selectively view files with names that seem interesting to the agent? And would such an approach scale?
On the post: Trademark Office Tosses Phyllis Schlafly's Opposition To Her Nephew's Brewery Name Trademark Application
Which is more shocking?
More importantly. Would anyone who disagrees with, or agrees with Phyllis Schlafly's politics assume that she had some connection with a Schlafly beer or other alcoholic beverage?
How would your name be 'tarnished' by the perfectly legal acts of another individual whose politics may be different than yours?
(disclaimer: I do not drink alcohol.)
On the post: Democratic National Committee Creates A 'Cybersecurity Board' Without A Single Cybersecurity Expert
They may not really want actual security
Adding real cybersecurity to the DNC now might undermine both parties' objective of taking away everyone else's cybersecurity.
Maybe the price, maybe mostly already paid in loss of top people, is not so high as to warrant getting actual cybersecurity. Just look like you're outraged and trying to do something about it. Appoint a board full of know nothing politicians.
On the post: AdWeek Articles On Google Ad VP Torrence Boone Hit With Bogus DMCA Notices Issued By Bogus 'News' Websites
Re:
On the post: AdWeek Articles On Google Ad VP Torrence Boone Hit With Bogus DMCA Notices Issued By Bogus 'News' Websites
Re: going nuclear
On the post: Volkswagen Created A 'Backdoor' To Basically All Its Cars... And Now Hackers Can Open All Of Them
Look at it another way
If Apple would be as cooperative as VW, then the police / FBI could search your phone too.
And VW's backdoor unlock technique would never be abused. Hear that Apple! (sarcasm)
On the post: Turkish Reporter: These Grand Theft Auto Cheat Codes Are The Secret Messages Of The Failed Coup Attempt
Re:
This planet could be a beta test.
Or, this planet could be some other planet's 'hell'.
On the post: Turkish Reporter: These Grand Theft Auto Cheat Codes Are The Secret Messages Of The Failed Coup Attempt
Re: Countries are like people
On the post: Turkish Reporter: These Grand Theft Auto Cheat Codes Are The Secret Messages Of The Failed Coup Attempt
Making stuff up and calling it news
They call it BREAKING NEWS.
On the post: Judge On Whether Twitter Is Legally Liable For ISIS Attacks: Hahahahahaha, Nope.
Re: Re: Re:
Capturing your internet history and selling it to anyone.
Creating new imaginary fees that cost real money.
Bandwidth capping when none is actually needed.
Etc.
On the post: Like The Rest Of The Internet Of Things, Most 'Smart' Locks Are Easily Hacked
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Like The Rest Of The Internet Of Things, Most 'Smart' Locks Are Easily Hacked
Re: Re: Does real security require cryptographic functions?
The government could come up with, what it calls, the most secure encryption key ever. This will keep us all safer. Everyone must start using this new, secure key as their encryption key at once! Anyone not using it is obviously up to no good. They aren't using this 'secure' key, and therefore are trying to weaken all of our security. Including our IoT gadgets.
(I think I can actually imagine Comey and McCain and others actually saying something like that with a straight face.)
Similarly, the government has a new physical key that everyone must start using for all of their locks. Homes, automobiles, etc. Copies of this will will be mass duplicated and distributed immediately.
On the post: Judge On Whether Twitter Is Legally Liable For ISIS Attacks: Hahahahahaha, Nope.
Re: Re: Stupidity
On the post: Judge On Whether Twitter Is Legally Liable For ISIS Attacks: Hahahahahaha, Nope.
Re: Re: Wasted Costs?
On the post: Judge On Whether Twitter Is Legally Liable For ISIS Attacks: Hahahahahaha, Nope.
But what are victims to do?
Wouldn't that be just as crazy as not holding Google responsible for all forms of piracy in the world?
And what about the electric utilities which supply their data centers? What responsibility do they have in all this?
On the post: No Inspiration Without Payment: Ed Sheeran Sued For Two Songs Sounding Too Similar To Old Songs
An example of similarity
Was the movie theme music inspired by the one line from the hymn? I highly doubt it.
On the post: No Inspiration Without Payment: Ed Sheeran Sued For Two Songs Sounding Too Similar To Old Songs
Too Similar ?
Which came first?
On the post: Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC Attempt To Eliminate Protectionist State Broadband Laws
What would happen without protectionist laws?
On the post: Like The Rest Of The Internet Of Things, Most 'Smart' Locks Are Easily Hacked
Does real security require cryptographic functions?
Should the government ban encryption, and thus keep everything insecure?
Should the government allow only weak encryption with, say, 16 bit keys? Nobody could possibly brute force that!
Should the government mandate crypto keys be kept in escrow with the government -- for your safety! Think of the children!
Should the government mandate that nerds invent a secure system that can be cracked by the government on demand? (Can they actually say this with a straight face?)
What about magical golden keys? (But the previous two items cover 'golden keys'.)
What about RIAA / MPAA style third party liability? If someone breaks into your home, no matter what brand of system you have, it must be the fault of (1) your ISP and (2) Google!
On the post: Botnet Bill Could Give FBI Permission To Take Warrantless Peeks At The Contents Of People's Computers
What exactly is PLAIN VIEW in this case?
So far, I don't have a big problem here -- although I trust the government in my computer even less than I trust the malware.
Now the question. What is plain view? Even if the FBI injects a software payload into the computer's memory to look for very specific things; what is 'plain view' as far as anything else I have on my computer?
It's not like this injected software has artificial intelligence and can say: oh, my, that's pr0n! Or that file has a very anti-government file name (gasp!).
The only way ANYTHING would be in 'plain view' is if they start exhaustively searching the computer for things. And those searches would be by nature of a search, directed at specific targets.
Or would the FBI have a live agent interacting with the FBI's malware, so the agent could selectively view files with names that seem interesting to the agent? And would such an approach scale?
On the post: Donald Trump On Intellectual Property: China Is Bad
Make the playing field more level
Instead of pushing China into more IP laws. How about us having less?
And we could start with Copyright, which has many problems.
But the counter productive patent system should get some attention too.
Next >>