Re: Re: Locks are meant to keep honest people out.
By that logic, we could get rid of locks—why do honest people need to be kept out?
I alluded to that. A lock that can be opened prevents someone from breaking your window or your doorframe. If someone is determined to enter, they will. The question becomes how much hassle do you want to go through to fix it later.
Authentication... who are you?
Authorization... do you have authorization to access this facility
Mechanism... do you have the token to effect this for access
Access... shall I open the door for you now
This is all obviated by breaking things, so trusting a $50-$100 IoT thing is a waste of time except for those honest people.
You do make a good point. Honest people won't come try your door to see if it's unlocked... so you don't really need a lock. Maybe a sticker like the "Protected by SomeAlarmCo" thing that looks like a really tough lock would work... to deter... the people who won't be deterred by the lock in the first place.
It's a game to them. If they lose, they don't rob YOUR place, and they go to the NEXT place. No harm, no foul, no loss. If YOU lose, you get your stuff broken into, stuff stolen, insurance hassle, and months without stuff -- some of which is irreplaceable.
How to win? Not sure.
How to break even? Not sure.
How to maximize your chances? Don't use IoT or other means of making it easy to rob you. Don't make your house/apt a target "Oh look, this guy has that dorky $20 doorbell we can 'hotwire' through BT to open. Let's see what cool things he has inside if he can afford this doorbell..."
Rabbit hole: Check out "lockpickinglawyer" on YouTube. He's done houses, businesses, secure locks, super secure locks, gun safes, padlocks, you name it. Usually in under a minute he shows you how to get around anything.
Locks prevent honest people from entering your house. People who want in can do any number of things from breaking a window to bashing in the doorstrike.
IoT introduces Yet Another Attack Vector (multiple points of failure is always weaker than single point of failure if the device fails-secure.)
I think EDUCATION is the answer. Educate the masses that their doorbell SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY be on the Internet. Sure, that means you can't let your kids in when you're too lazy to be home on time. Sure, it means the FedEx guy has to leave the package outside instead of inside the home. It also means that J. Rando MethHead can't use BT or WiFi or 5G (chortle) to open your door.
-cross apply all that to anything else that's IoT. It may not have a "security of the domicile" application but who wants their bedroom lights turned on at midnight (other than people awake at midnight)? Who wants their TV set to watch porn loudly at 0300 (other than people watching porn......)? Who wants their oven starting a 45 minute bake cycle with nothing in it? All these REALLY HAPPEN.
Where is IoT useful? Everywhere. Where is the tradeoff between IoT and properly secured IoT (no such thing because in an arms race when the mfg and the customer have no incentive to participate, the opposing forces always win) in favor of the consumer? Never.
IoT is great for... mmm... "Fridge, show me what's inside so I can see if I need to buy more milk." Anything that's READ-ONLY has potential to be useful on the upside of the tradeoff.
Anything that's read/write or read/write/act is on the downside and over time will get worse because of that arms race.
Ah, I love this rabbit hole.
Civil asset forfeiture is an addictive rotting disease that should never have been unleashed and now its addicts are running the "rehabilitation program."
The monies "recovered" should never be taken without a fair trial. Full stop. In addition, no matter how legal these addicts have made their theft, the funds should ALWAYS go into the general fund -- NOT LEO funds, and be available for governmental use such as roads, parks, schools (think of the children indeed, while they GET OFF MY LAWN!) etc.
Civil forfeiture is anathema to our entire "justice" system. Giving the proceeds to the thief addicts is like giving cash to meth burglars. Maybe we'll see some change in politics in 69 days.
When I worked for the government, I couldn't buy anything without it going all the way up through my manager, his manager, her manager, his manager, director-level, then procurement.
When I worked for corporations, I couldn't buy anything without it going all the way up through my manager [rinse; repeat], then purchasing.
When I ran my own companies, I couldn't buy anything without meeting with the group (CTO to determine if this was the right thing to buy, CFO to determine how to purchase whether through outright, lease, credit, etc., and accountant to determine when to purchase for best tax treatment.)
In every one of these cases the people involved were highly skilled and trained professionals, and we all worked together.
Why is it that beat cops and their donut-eating cop-shop-seat-fattening black-people-shooting friends can buy whatever they want... give money (that would be OUR tax money) to these charlatans, then tell us they need more funding because there aren't enough cops to serve, protect, tase innocent women, kill deaf people, or abuse them in jail??
Maybe this is rhetorical... but if someone can suggest how this one is solved... that would be a good first step.
M&A isn't really a bidding process in the sense of eBay. It's a bidding process to get to the contract phase. Oracle can always say "Glad you liked our price. Sorry MS got cold feet. We don't like the financials [or the political pressure, or the stupid name, or whatever] so we're out.
If M&A operated on a "best and final and if we accept your bid you're stuck with us" that would be at best funny, but disadvantageous to the seller... because of the amount of carve-outs and conditions the buyer often insists on, let alone the structure of the deal... which lawyers on both sides work on.
Not a bad thought tho. eBay for M&A of businesses! I'll bite (as a buyer).
Each year, Indiana sends video of their Inbred 500 race which enters my house on a wire which is on my property without my express permission.
I do have a telco cable to provide broadband data, but they also send this other thing over it from Indiana, which I neither have chosen to request, pay for, nor watch.
Over the past 15 years I figure Indiana has used my infrastructure at least 90 hours... for which they should pay me a good fortune.
I'll accept any of:
Indiana admits the race is worthless, and then owes me for 90 hours of worthless pomp and circumstance.
Indiana admits the race is worth so much and credit that "so much" for 90 hours I didn't watch.
Indiana claims that just because it uses my infrastructure they don't have to pay me because they're not the actual lessor of the right to use that infrastructure.
Anyone out there a lawyer that wants to sue Indiana for me?
When a power vacuum exists, anyone with any power attempts to rise to the top and collect the vacuum. The current US administration has shown such weakness and lack of support for its allies, that has allowed Turkey's Erdogan and China's Xi to do whatever they want, knowing that Trump won't do anything.
China has an international treaty with the UK for the handover of HK. Apparently the UK is a little busy right now with brexit. The US has what we've called "friends" be they the Kurds or the Hong Kong citizens... and we've abandoned them all.
It shouldn't be Google's job (or Apple's job or any other tech firm's job) to figure out these politics. The same idiot who said Tik-Tok "must be sold to Microsoft and I get a cut of the deal" could say "no more dealing with HK."
Sure, it's overreach to issue two executive orders, one claiming a two-year old merger/acquisition is no longer approved, and one claiming that they "must sell to Microsoft"... no matter how unlawful it is for the administration to order anyone to sell to a specific buyer something that isn't for sale to begin with.
SO, good on Goog, but it shouldn't be up to them. It should be up to our government "leaders" in Congress. Too bad we don't have any.
Each of the pictures scraped by Clearview is protected by copyright.
No, it's not. Go read TechDirt. Search for "Naruto."
I license a social media platform to store and display my images...
What you license is not relevant. As to the images:
If YOU took them yourself, YOU have the copyright. Automatically taken pictures don't qualify. Pictures taken by others and uploaded MAY have a copyright, but YOU don't have the copyright unless a) There is a copyright owner, and b)That copyright owner assigns ALL those rights to you. Go read TechDirt. Search for "Righthaven"
...but I haven’t made them public domain.
That's not relevant either. Pictures can be used for many things without needing you to put them in the public domain. Go read TechDirt. Search for "Fair use" for one such example.
Clearview and each of the agencies that access those images should have to pay for their infringements...
What infringement? Go read the above cases.
...and be enjoined from further infringement.
Orders of restraints and injunctions are NOT issued in cases where other solutions (such as monetary ones) exist. There's no "enjoining anyone" here. Go read TechDirt and search for "injunction".
There should be class-action law suits which would bankrupt Clearview and its staff and the agencies that are using the infringing materials.
There should be a knowledge of the laws before misportraying them. Class action lawsuits are formed by filing a suit and asking it be declared applicable to a class of people. Given the lack of anyone filing anything, let alone all the automatic pictures of people or those taken by LEOs and DMV/MVDs and other sources ... that's not going to happen either.
Go google "UPL" or "Unlicensed Practice of Law" and why some people never make it to be a 1L.
There's not much difference between people sharing information about where to find someone's name, address, etc. than sharing pictures of them in various locations. Sure, there's no expectation of privacy in public (just like there isn't in assessor tax records for who owns Officer Jim's house). There is, however, an expectation that the records will stay with the respective agency that should have them.
So, Clearview, if doxing is ok, [and that's the same as sharing my picture walking out of the adult bookstore] how about we create a new website to list all your executives. Would you feel threatened? Would you call it "malicious".
I find the sharing of my picture -- despite it being taken in public -- and put into a national (soon international) database to be compared and searched and indexed "malicious." There's nothing good about it.
330,000,000 Americans don't need to be indexed in order to decrease crime by the few who commit it. Just remove the corrupt LEOs and those who support them. Crime will drop a bunch. I promise.
Don't forget to check out Sec 22 which allows the carrier to submit the data on a FLOPPY DISKETTE.
All references subject to change over time, and conflict with other references... and whatever Ajit Pai comes up with yesterday and tell us all tomorrow.
We are not allowed to shoot our math teachers... that's just an unfortunate part of living in the United States... one of the compromises we make living here where the math teacher's right to live is not overshadowed by our right to kill the teacher for being a tight-ass OCD nutcase.
I agree.
We are, to the best of my knowledge still -- in 2020 -- allowed to have dreams, whether at night, daydreams, fantasies, and even watch movies where math teachers get shot to death in gruesome manners with AR-15s that the masses call "automatic military assault-style scary-looking dangerous nobody should own that" rifles.
We can even do that in many FPS video games.
But apparently if we TELL anyone about this thing, THAT is something we're NOT allowed to do and should be suspended, expelled, sent to the school-resource officer (cop who didn't quite have the IQ to be a beat cop), or shot by same.
Somehow that makes no sense to me.
The right to freedom of speech free of government interference should not extend to not sharing my dream. I didn't dream of shooting my math teacher, but I did have a crush on my 2nd grade teacher... if I'd said that would I have been suspended/expelled/SR'd/shot for possible sexual misconduct?
Today's "school administrators" make a lot of money to do nothing more than stifle student rights, teacher salaries, and pad their pockets.
It has been time for change for many years. This is year another one of them.
This is a discussion that started in the 1980s... when the precursor to the modern Internet was funded by the US DoD (ARPAnet) and Education (NSFnet). Anytime someone did something we didn't like there were always people (and still are) who said "We done built-in. Disconnect those who can't git along." There were also those who said "We all should learn to communicate... that's what brings us together."
It IS disappointing the US government under this F.Upped administration is pandering to the isolationists. Nothing new, just now they're applying it to the Internet.
As Tim said... it's a bad idea all around. I'm an Internet security consultant, but don't listen to me... listen to Bruce Schneier, Brian Krebs, and others who have expounded on this in depth
secure your data
encrypt your access to your secure data
don't leave your authentication credentials in the open (including GitHub or GitLab repos, code snippets, or password managers)
use MFA or 2FA where available (unless it's SMS in which case don't store sensitive information in the account)
use a VPN provided by the organization you work for to send that data. If you want to torrent, use a private VPN separate from that. Yes, I do mean MULTIPLE VPNs, each for its own purpose.
I don't care if the Chinese government gets a list of what I bought from Target or Walmart or Amazon last week. Yet even so I use 2FA with AMZ, secure all transactions with SSL (HTTPS), and EVERY credit card purchase can be stopped within minutes.
If you have compartmentalized or FOUO or sensitive information, DO NOT PUT IT ON THE PUBLIC INTERNET.
This isn't a "Chyna" problem or a "Russia" problem or an "Iran" problem. This is a "people failing to take responsibility for securing their data" problem. Not victim blaming... just stating the obvious.
Really? Please explain how "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs" has ANYTHING to do with government agents in unmarked vehicles grabbing people off the streets OR the status of my stomach.
Feel free to take your time and show your work. Being and reactionary about "communism is stupid" and "authoritarian governments" like the one we have now... is just... well... stupid.
Cops like to pretend they aren't civilians. They are.
It's been officers in camo -- looking for all the world like a branch of the military
Well, given they are bringing M4s and M4A1s with suppressors, it's "hard" to think how anyone would confuse them with anything other than military.
Snatching people off the street into unmarked -rental- vans with hoods over their head reminds me of Fauda, or The Black List, or The Godfather. These are not the actions of "law enforcement". These are the actions of MILITARY WANNABE THUGS LACKING TRAINING OR HUMANITY.
All the people who for years said "We need our firearms to avoid the gov'mint coming to take our rights away" -- they're here, and they're taking your rights away... along with those arguments about the 2Am.
Ehud
P.S. I don't want to die at the hands of a false military FROM MY OWN COUNTRY. Congress has a role and they've abdicated it long enough.
On the post: Consumer Reports Study Shows Many 'Smart' Doorbells Are Dumb, Lack Basic Security
Re: Re: Locks are meant to keep honest people out.
I alluded to that. A lock that can be opened prevents someone from breaking your window or your doorframe. If someone is determined to enter, they will. The question becomes how much hassle do you want to go through to fix it later.
This is all obviated by breaking things, so trusting a $50-$100 IoT thing is a waste of time except for those honest people.
You do make a good point. Honest people won't come try your door to see if it's unlocked... so you don't really need a lock. Maybe a sticker like the "Protected by SomeAlarmCo" thing that looks like a really tough lock would work... to deter... the people who won't be deterred by the lock in the first place.
It's a game to them. If they lose, they don't rob YOUR place, and they go to the NEXT place. No harm, no foul, no loss. If YOU lose, you get your stuff broken into, stuff stolen, insurance hassle, and months without stuff -- some of which is irreplaceable.
How to win? Not sure.
How to break even? Not sure.
How to maximize your chances? Don't use IoT or other means of making it easy to rob you. Don't make your house/apt a target "Oh look, this guy has that dorky $20 doorbell we can 'hotwire' through BT to open. Let's see what cool things he has inside if he can afford this doorbell..."
etc.
E
On the post: Documents Show Law Enforcement Agencies Are Still Throwing Tax Dollars At Junk Science
Re: Also, everyone knows that a real one
David Duke begs to differ.
Wizard and Grand Wizard are neither magical nor with two Zs :)
E
On the post: Consumer Reports Study Shows Many 'Smart' Doorbells Are Dumb, Lack Basic Security
Locks are meant to keep honest people out.
Rabbit hole: Check out "lockpickinglawyer" on YouTube. He's done houses, businesses, secure locks, super secure locks, gun safes, padlocks, you name it. Usually in under a minute he shows you how to get around anything.
Locks prevent honest people from entering your house. People who want in can do any number of things from breaking a window to bashing in the doorstrike.
IoT introduces Yet Another Attack Vector (multiple points of failure is always weaker than single point of failure if the device fails-secure.)
I think EDUCATION is the answer. Educate the masses that their doorbell SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY be on the Internet. Sure, that means you can't let your kids in when you're too lazy to be home on time. Sure, it means the FedEx guy has to leave the package outside instead of inside the home. It also means that J. Rando MethHead can't use BT or WiFi or 5G (chortle) to open your door.
-cross apply all that to anything else that's IoT. It may not have a "security of the domicile" application but who wants their bedroom lights turned on at midnight (other than people awake at midnight)? Who wants their TV set to watch porn loudly at 0300 (other than people watching porn......)? Who wants their oven starting a 45 minute bake cycle with nothing in it? All these REALLY HAPPEN.
Where is IoT useful? Everywhere. Where is the tradeoff between IoT and properly secured IoT (no such thing because in an arms race when the mfg and the customer have no incentive to participate, the opposing forces always win) in favor of the consumer? Never.
IoT is great for... mmm... "Fridge, show me what's inside so I can see if I need to buy more milk." Anything that's READ-ONLY has potential to be useful on the upside of the tradeoff.
Anything that's read/write or read/write/act is on the downside and over time will get worse because of that arms race.
Down with IoT!!
E
On the post: Documents Show Law Enforcement Agencies Are Still Throwing Tax Dollars At Junk Science
Civil Asset Forfeiture
Ah, I love this rabbit hole.
Civil asset forfeiture is an addictive rotting disease that should never have been unleashed and now its addicts are running the "rehabilitation program."
The monies "recovered" should never be taken without a fair trial. Full stop. In addition, no matter how legal these addicts have made their theft, the funds should ALWAYS go into the general fund -- NOT LEO funds, and be available for governmental use such as roads, parks, schools (think of the children indeed, while they GET OFF MY LAWN!) etc.
Civil forfeiture is anathema to our entire "justice" system. Giving the proceeds to the thief addicts is like giving cash to meth burglars. Maybe we'll see some change in politics in 69 days.
E
On the post: Documents Show Law Enforcement Agencies Are Still Throwing Tax Dollars At Junk Science
Re:
Building on the shoulders of giants:
So, besides being stupid and a phony, she's also stupid.
;)
E
On the post: Documents Show Law Enforcement Agencies Are Still Throwing Tax Dollars At Junk Science
Oversight?
When I worked for the government, I couldn't buy anything without it going all the way up through my manager, his manager, her manager, his manager, director-level, then procurement.
When I worked for corporations, I couldn't buy anything without it going all the way up through my manager [rinse; repeat], then purchasing.
When I ran my own companies, I couldn't buy anything without meeting with the group (CTO to determine if this was the right thing to buy, CFO to determine how to purchase whether through outright, lease, credit, etc., and accountant to determine when to purchase for best tax treatment.)
In every one of these cases the people involved were highly skilled and trained professionals, and we all worked together.
Why is it that beat cops and their donut-eating cop-shop-seat-fattening black-people-shooting friends can buy whatever they want... give money (that would be OUR tax money) to these charlatans, then tell us they need more funding because there aren't enough cops to serve, protect, tase innocent women, kill deaf people, or abuse them in jail??
Maybe this is rhetorical... but if someone can suggest how this one is solved... that would be a good first step.
Ehud
On the post: Paulding County School District Now Trying To Duck FOIA Requests
Georgia
Inbreeding. Nepotism. Racism.
Welcome to The South™.
E
On the post: If Oracle Buys TikTok, Would It Suddenly Change Its Tune On Section 230?
Re: Re: Oracle isn't buying TikTok
M&A isn't really a bidding process in the sense of eBay. It's a bidding process to get to the contract phase. Oracle can always say "Glad you liked our price. Sorry MS got cold feet. We don't like the financials [or the political pressure, or the stupid name, or whatever] so we're out.
If M&A operated on a "best and final and if we accept your bid you're stuck with us" that would be at best funny, but disadvantageous to the seller... because of the amount of carve-outs and conditions the buyer often insists on, let alone the structure of the deal... which lawyers on both sides work on.
Not a bad thought tho. eBay for M&A of businesses! I'll bite (as a buyer).
E
On the post: Indiana Cities File Doomed Lawsuit Against Disney, Netflix, Demand 5% of Gross Revenues
Indiana ows me money
Each year, Indiana sends video of their Inbred 500 race which enters my house on a wire which is on my property without my express permission.
I do have a telco cable to provide broadband data, but they also send this other thing over it from Indiana, which I neither have chosen to request, pay for, nor watch.
Over the past 15 years I figure Indiana has used my infrastructure at least 90 hours... for which they should pay me a good fortune.
I'll accept any of:
Anyone out there a lawyer that wants to sue Indiana for me?
Ehud
On the post: If Oracle Buys TikTok, Would It Suddenly Change Its Tune On Section 230?
Oracle isn't buying TikTok
Oracle is not buying TikTok.
Oracle is simply bidding up the game to make MS pay more*.
Watch it play out and enjoy. Popcorn all around.
E
On the post: Google Responds To Hong Kong's New National Security Law By Rejecting Its Government's Requests For Data
Power Vacuums
When a power vacuum exists, anyone with any power attempts to rise to the top and collect the vacuum. The current US administration has shown such weakness and lack of support for its allies, that has allowed Turkey's Erdogan and China's Xi to do whatever they want, knowing that Trump won't do anything.
China has an international treaty with the UK for the handover of HK. Apparently the UK is a little busy right now with brexit. The US has what we've called "friends" be they the Kurds or the Hong Kong citizens... and we've abandoned them all.
It shouldn't be Google's job (or Apple's job or any other tech firm's job) to figure out these politics. The same idiot who said Tik-Tok "must be sold to Microsoft and I get a cut of the deal" could say "no more dealing with HK."
Sure, it's overreach to issue two executive orders, one claiming a two-year old merger/acquisition is no longer approved, and one claiming that they "must sell to Microsoft"... no matter how unlawful it is for the administration to order anyone to sell to a specific buyer something that isn't for sale to begin with.
SO, good on Goog, but it shouldn't be up to them. It should be up to our government "leaders" in Congress. Too bad we don't have any.
Ehud
On the post: Clearview Hires Prominent First Amendment Lawyer To Argue For Its Right To Sell Scraped Data To Cops
Sloppy editing above ^^^
Clearly screwed up on the quoted text. Mea culpa.
E
On the post: Clearview Hires Prominent First Amendment Lawyer To Argue For Its Right To Sell Scraped Data To Cops
Go read TechDirt
No, it's not. Go read TechDirt. Search for "Naruto."
What you license is not relevant. As to the images:
If YOU took them yourself, YOU have the copyright. Automatically taken pictures don't qualify. Pictures taken by others and uploaded MAY have a copyright, but YOU don't have the copyright unless a) There is a copyright owner, and b)That copyright owner assigns ALL those rights to you. Go read TechDirt. Search for "Righthaven"
There should be class-action law suits which would bankrupt Clearview and its staff and the agencies that are using the infringing materials.
There should be a knowledge of the laws before misportraying them. Class action lawsuits are formed by filing a suit and asking it be declared applicable to a class of people. Given the lack of anyone filing anything, let alone all the automatic pictures of people or those taken by LEOs and DMV/MVDs and other sources ... that's not going to happen either.
Go google "UPL" or "Unlicensed Practice of Law" and why some people never make it to be a 1L.
Ehud
On the post: Clearview Hires Prominent First Amendment Lawyer To Argue For Its Right To Sell Scraped Data To Cops
Is Doxing Protected Speech?
Is doxing protected speech? This abstract lays out some fundamental concepts that suggest that it ought to be criminal to "maliciously" dox someone. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5411&context=flr
There's not much difference between people sharing information about where to find someone's name, address, etc. than sharing pictures of them in various locations. Sure, there's no expectation of privacy in public (just like there isn't in assessor tax records for who owns Officer Jim's house). There is, however, an expectation that the records will stay with the respective agency that should have them.
So, Clearview, if doxing is ok, [and that's the same as sharing my picture walking out of the adult bookstore] how about we create a new website to list all your executives. Would you feel threatened? Would you call it "malicious".
I find the sharing of my picture -- despite it being taken in public -- and put into a national (soon international) database to be compared and searched and indexed "malicious." There's nothing good about it.
330,000,000 Americans don't need to be indexed in order to decrease crime by the few who commit it. Just remove the corrupt LEOs and those who support them. Crime will drop a bunch. I promise.
Ehud
On the post: Creating Family Friendly Chat More Difficult Than Imagined (1996)
1hh5r?
Now I have to go change all my banking passwords. Techdirt/Copia how dare you out my secure password!!
On the post: New York State Leaders Finally Realize U.S. Broadband Availability Data Is Hot Garbage
Some references
For details on the FCC's "idea" of what constitutes broadband (yes, satellite is on there as is DSL - a great 1990s answer) see https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-50A1.pdf .
If you want to find out more about who is required to file the broadband certifications (Form 477) see
https://transition.fcc.gov/broadband/broadband_data_faq.pdf
Don't forget to check out Sec 22 which allows the carrier to submit the data on a FLOPPY DISKETTE.
All references subject to change over time, and conflict with other references... and whatever Ajit Pai comes up with yesterday and tell us all tomorrow.
E
On the post: Georgia School District Inadvertently Begins Teaching Lessons In First Amendment Protections After Viral Photo
Terrorism
We are not allowed to shoot our math teachers... that's just an unfortunate part of living in the United States... one of the compromises we make living here where the math teacher's right to live is not overshadowed by our right to kill the teacher for being a tight-ass OCD nutcase.
I agree.
We are, to the best of my knowledge still -- in 2020 -- allowed to have dreams, whether at night, daydreams, fantasies, and even watch movies where math teachers get shot to death in gruesome manners with AR-15s that the masses call "automatic military assault-style scary-looking dangerous nobody should own that" rifles.
We can even do that in many FPS video games.
But apparently if we TELL anyone about this thing, THAT is something we're NOT allowed to do and should be suspended, expelled, sent to the school-resource officer (cop who didn't quite have the IQ to be a beat cop), or shot by same.
Somehow that makes no sense to me.
The right to freedom of speech free of government interference should not extend to not sharing my dream. I didn't dream of shooting my math teacher, but I did have a crush on my 2nd grade teacher... if I'd said that would I have been suspended/expelled/SR'd/shot for possible sexual misconduct?
Today's "school administrators" make a lot of money to do nothing more than stifle student rights, teacher salaries, and pad their pockets.
It has been time for change for many years. This is year another one of them.
Ehud
On the post: State Department Announces That Great Firewall For The US; Blocks Chinese Apps & Equipment
Internet Balkanization
This is a discussion that started in the 1980s... when the precursor to the modern Internet was funded by the US DoD (ARPAnet) and Education (NSFnet). Anytime someone did something we didn't like there were always people (and still are) who said "We done built-in. Disconnect those who can't git along." There were also those who said "We all should learn to communicate... that's what brings us together."
It IS disappointing the US government under this F.Upped administration is pandering to the isolationists. Nothing new, just now they're applying it to the Internet.
As Tim said... it's a bad idea all around. I'm an Internet security consultant, but don't listen to me... listen to Bruce Schneier, Brian Krebs, and others who have expounded on this in depth
I don't care if the Chinese government gets a list of what I bought from Target or Walmart or Amazon last week. Yet even so I use 2FA with AMZ, secure all transactions with SSL (HTTPS), and EVERY credit card purchase can be stopped within minutes.
If you have compartmentalized or FOUO or sensitive information, DO NOT PUT IT ON THE PUBLIC INTERNET.
This isn't a "Chyna" problem or a "Russia" problem or an "Iran" problem. This is a "people failing to take responsibility for securing their data" problem. Not victim blaming... just stating the obvious.
E
On the post: Bill Barr Celebrates New DOJ 'Surge' Targeting Violent Crime By Touting 199 Arrests That Occurred Pre-Surge
Re:
Really? Please explain how "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs" has ANYTHING to do with government agents in unmarked vehicles grabbing people off the streets OR the status of my stomach.
Feel free to take your time and show your work. Being and reactionary about "communism is stupid" and "authoritarian governments" like the one we have now... is just... well... stupid.
Go do your homework.
E
On the post: Bill Barr Celebrates New DOJ 'Surge' Targeting Violent Crime By Touting 199 Arrests That Occurred Pre-Surge
Military or civilian
Cops like to pretend they aren't civilians. They are.
Well, given they are bringing M4s and M4A1s with suppressors, it's "hard" to think how anyone would confuse them with anything other than military.
Snatching people off the street into unmarked -rental- vans with hoods over their head reminds me of Fauda, or The Black List, or The Godfather. These are not the actions of "law enforcement". These are the actions of MILITARY WANNABE THUGS LACKING TRAINING OR HUMANITY.
All the people who for years said "We need our firearms to avoid the gov'mint coming to take our rights away" -- they're here, and they're taking your rights away... along with those arguments about the 2Am.
Ehud
P.S. I don't want to die at the hands of a false military FROM MY OWN COUNTRY. Congress has a role and they've abdicated it long enough.
Next >>