Doesn't making vulnerabilities public IMPROVE national security? Not damage it?
Once the vulnerabilities are known, the vendors / providers of affected software can patch those vulnerabilities making their software, and our nation more secure against hackers, including other nation states.
Given two conflicting goals, I would rather that our systems be more secure than our adversaries systems be less secure. Both would be nice, but if I can't have both, I would rather our systems be more secure.
Prior Restraint is the best evidence that we are sliding into fascism.
“We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some way. Somebody will say: ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.” — trump, 12/8/2015
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism 2. Disdain for human rights 3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause 4. Rampant sexism 5. Controlled mass media 6. Obsession with national security 7. Religion and government intertwined 8. Corporate power protected 9. Labor power suppressed 10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts 11. Obsession with crime and punishment 12. Rampant cronyism and corruption
If person A then puts that murder on Facebook, then this law is not going to prevent that. The murder itself is far worse than the act of putting it on facebook. It's like criminalizing throwing chewing gum on the floor during a robbery.
If person B records A committing a murder, then criminalizing the putting it on facebook might deter B, assuming B committed no other crime and is not an accessory to the murder.
Now suppose that person A is a police officer. It would now seem that person B putting that recording on Facebook, YouTube and everywhere else suddenly has become a public service. That evidence needs to be spread far and wide before the police can disappear it, and disappear person B.
The officers should be more polite. Instead of saying "me and these other officers are going to beat you to a bloody pulp" they should say "we are going to re-accommodate you. That's what we do.". All levels of government are great at using euphemisms. Just like brutal regimes we were fighting against in the previous century.
The cameras need to be synced to switches in gun and nightstick holsters. That way the cameras can automatically turn off when the police are about to re-accommodate someone.
Remember the recent story of the emergency sirens that were so easily set off by a childishly simple method?
I think this is the big secret of stingray. This is why they want to keep it secret so badly that they will let criminals go free rather than let stingray be scrutinized in open court.
Hypothesis 1: stingray is based on some fundamental weakness in the cellular system that is so severe that if it became generally known, every high school kid would build a stingray.
Because of the severity of the weakness, the defense could argue in court that someone else created the network traffic (calls, messages, etc) which the stingray intercepted, thus pulling the rug from under the prosecution.
Hypothesis 2: The exploit may involve secret keys, stolen credentials and other things that mobile operators would sue over, or inform law enforcement over, if they knew what was used in stingray. Using stingray may actually be illegal. This would explain parallel construction, NDAs, etc.
In this case, the defense could argue that the evidence against the defendant was obtained by illegal means, breaking the law.
Your trademark should be narrowly focused, to your particular industry. After all, someone in the fashion industry might want the trademark on Red to exclude others from using it. Similarly, some automobile manufacturer might want a trademark on Red for automobiles.
many scientists wanted to have a patent or two to their name in order to make their curriculum vitae look more impressive
Eventually patents might be something you don't want your name associated with. Things change.
Remember: nobody ever got fired for buying IBM?
Then remember: nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft?
Now everyone uses open source, and Microsoft openly admitted that Windows Subsystem for Linux is an effort to draw developers back to Windows. And SQL Server on Linux was even more of an admission than Linux on Azure that real servers run Linux, not Windows.
At some point, potential employers might be looking for things like arrests, patents, and red flags.
On the post: Former Spies' Dubious Claim: Release Of NSA's Windows Exploits Has Seriously Harmed National Security
Damaged National Security
Once the vulnerabilities are known, the vendors / providers of affected software can patch those vulnerabilities making their software, and our nation more secure against hackers, including other nation states.
Given two conflicting goals, I would rather that our systems be more secure than our adversaries systems be less secure. Both would be nice, but if I can't have both, I would rather our systems be more secure.
On the post: Stop It. Trump's Lawyers Did Not Say That Protestors Have No First Amendment Right To Dissent
What about these quotes?
"We have to beat the savages"
"knock the crap out of them... I promise I will pay for the legal fees"
"They should have been roughed up" (protesters)
"Nothing you can do folks...although, second amendment people, maybe there is"
"you have to go after their family"
"she's at best, a 6"
On the post: UK Crime Agency's Latest Moral Panic: Kids Modding Videogames May Be A Gateway To Becoming Criminal Hackers
Re: Criminal gateways everywhere
On the post: NY Judge Says Prior Restraint Is America's Best Defense Against Internet 'Chaos'
The best evidence
“We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some way. Somebody will say: ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”
— trump, 12/8/2015
The 12 Early Warning Signs of Fascism
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/01/31/the-12-early-warning-signs-of-fascism/
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
4. Rampant sexism
5. Controlled mass media
6. Obsession with national security
7. Religion and government intertwined
8. Corporate power protected
9. Labor power suppressed
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
11. Obsession with crime and punishment
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption
On the post: Cop Arrested, Fired After Wife Captures His Abusive Actions On His Own Body Camera
Re:
Hopefully the wife can get a protective order before her abusive spouse re-accommodates her.
On the post: Why Is The Hotel Industry More Focused On Harming Airbnb Than Improving Their Own Product?
Why hotels don't improve their own product
They misread it as the Hospital industry.
Therefore people who stay in their rooms should have to suffer.
On the post: Why Is The Hotel Industry More Focused On Harming Airbnb Than Improving Their Own Product?
Re: Re:
Because they are assuming you would do what they would do.
If they are paid to have an opinion, then (they think) you must be also.
On the post: Actual Lawyer Thinks That Criminalizing Showing Murder On Facebook Will Prevent Murders On Facebook
Re: How that law would actually work
On the post: Actual Lawyer Thinks That Criminalizing Showing Murder On Facebook Will Prevent Murders On Facebook
How that law would actually work
If person A then puts that murder on Facebook, then this law is not going to prevent that. The murder itself is far worse than the act of putting it on facebook. It's like criminalizing throwing chewing gum on the floor during a robbery.
If person B records A committing a murder, then criminalizing the putting it on facebook might deter B, assuming B committed no other crime and is not an accessory to the murder.
Now suppose that person A is a police officer. It would now seem that person B putting that recording on Facebook, YouTube and everywhere else suddenly has become a public service. That evidence needs to be spread far and wide before the police can disappear it, and disappear person B.
On the post: Court: No Immunity For Federal Agent Who Made Elderly Woman Stand In Urine-Soaked Pants For Two Hours While He Questioned Her
Treat people with dignity
On the post: Taser Seeking To Lock Down Body Camera Market With 'Free' Camera Offer To Law Enforcement Agencies
Re: Great business model
On the post: The Bull Statue Copyright Claim Is Ridiculous... But Here's Why It Just Might Work
Re: Re: They can always remove the bull
On the post: The Bull Statue Copyright Claim Is Ridiculous... But Here's Why It Just Might Work
Re:
The first amendment loses. Because copyright!
On a related different note:
How do you expect artist's and creators' great great grandchildren to live without the licensing income from eternal copyright?
On the post: The Bull Statue Copyright Claim Is Ridiculous... But Here's Why It Just Might Work
Solution -- another statue!
On the post: 70% Support Letting Cities Build Their Own Broadband Networks, So Why Are We Still Passing State Laws Banning It?
What if?
If the public understood the issue, that is what could make a difference in the voting.
On the post: Attorney General Kills Off Study Of DOJ's Highly-Flawed Forensic Practices And Evidence
Can this help the defense in any way?
On the post: Canada's National Police Force Officially Confirms Ownership, Use Of Stingray Devices
Just to repeat my hypothesis
I think this is the big secret of stingray. This is why they want to keep it secret so badly that they will let criminals go free rather than let stingray be scrutinized in open court.
Hypothesis 1: stingray is based on some fundamental weakness in the cellular system that is so severe that if it became generally known, every high school kid would build a stingray.
Because of the severity of the weakness, the defense could argue in court that someone else created the network traffic (calls, messages, etc) which the stingray intercepted, thus pulling the rug from under the prosecution.
Hypothesis 2: The exploit may involve secret keys, stolen credentials and other things that mobile operators would sue over, or inform law enforcement over, if they knew what was used in stingray. Using stingray may actually be illegal. This would explain parallel construction, NDAs, etc.
In this case, the defense could argue that the evidence against the defendant was obtained by illegal means, breaking the law.
On the post: Dear CD Projekt Red: Please Stop Trying To Get Trademarks On The Common Name Of A Genre
Don't forget to trademark "Red"
Your trademark should be narrowly focused, to your particular industry. After all, someone in the fashion industry might want the trademark on Red to exclude others from using it. Similarly, some automobile manufacturer might want a trademark on Red for automobiles.
On the post: India Learns The Hard Way That Equating Patents And Innovation Comes At A Price
Wrong side of history
Eventually patents might be something you don't want your name associated with. Things change.
Remember: nobody ever got fired for buying IBM?
Then remember: nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft?
Now everyone uses open source, and Microsoft openly admitted that Windows Subsystem for Linux is an effort to draw developers back to Windows. And SQL Server on Linux was even more of an admission than Linux on Azure that real servers run Linux, not Windows.
At some point, potential employers might be looking for things like arrests, patents, and red flags.
On the post: Twitter Sues Homeland Security Over Attempt To Unmask 'Alt' Immigration Twitter Account
Re: the most protected speech
Next >>