When we want change, we spout it off and demand it but when it comes down to achieving it, we hide and stay mundane. Sometimes one has to wonder if we are genetically abundant with fear of change. Society is all talk, no substance. They know this. In then end, a Dem will vote Dem and a Rep will vote Rep regardless of party agendas, because change is too hard.
Ughughugh... I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed..really, really disappointed. Actually, I'm pretty pissed off too
So far Hillary is winning all the states that won't vote for her in the general election because they always go republican.
Not going to waste my vote on Sanders. I like the guy, some of his ideas are ok, but I dont like being scolded for past politics.. I feel that with Clinton, at least the road we're on now wont change all to much..
Bernie sanders seems to be quite popular at my university, however I feel that too many young people don't vote in the primary. I'll admit, this is actually the first primary I have voted in (Bernie Sanders FWIW), before I had only voted in the general .. and by that time it's usually too late. In any case we're fucked, it would be a miracle if we don't have two fascist candidates running in the general. I won't vote for Mrs. Clinton (i don't think ... i only would if i absolutely HAVE to), she is a fascist that supports policies that are harmful to the american economy as well as supporting draconian surveillance and trampling on 4th amendment rights of Americans (the same old shit many including myself hated George W. Bush for). This goes against my ethics. I know, I know ... people that know nothing about computers and technology don't see the implications of this, but the tech companies who do, and anyone who has studied this subject even a little ought to understand that any backdoor, i.e. intentionally placed exploit cannot be kept in the hands of only "the good guys" ... for those that consider the NSA to be "good guys" that is. Any exploit will be discovered and appear on hacker boards rather quickly, now accessible to the entire world, including terrorists who will use this against us, while being aware of the exploits will simply avoid them. One of the student organizations at my university has some people working on methods of identifying "bad tor relays", i.e. ones owned by people like the NSA. So, why not just ban academics, especially computer science and engineering, and outsource engineering jobs to countries like china and india. To her this would make economic sense, and also make sure academics in America doesn't find ways to thwart any malicious intentions. Of course we have the internet ... why not just ban that or heavily censor it. Do a google search on RSA and have it return 404 ... in a couple generations we'll have a populace so ignorant that has no clue what encryption is. Problem solved.
So what are your concerns, if any, on corporate surveillance of private individuals? For example, if I search for a particular item on the web, I immediately start getting numerous hits relating to that search. Why are corporations allowed to view and store what books I look for? And, related, if I'm looking up how to construct dirty bombs and how to conduct mass killings of people, shouldn't the government be looking at me and my intentions?
Novelists and screenwriters search for stuff like that all the time. Judging someone's intentions before action is called "prejudice", or prejudgment. A warrant cannot be constitutionally obtained without probable causee that a crime has in fact been committed, not that one possibly could be committed in the future. Suspicion (even reaasonable) is not ground for a warrant. And corporations should not keep records on what items certain customers buy, especially books. It's none of their business. They do not need this data to do their finance. I don't sign up for rewards cards, if I do use a reward card I use phony information and use phony information wherever possible. Stores that ask me for my phone number i either give a phony number or tell them that I don't own a phone, and politely tell them that they don't need my phone number to sell me something. The more noise I can inject into the system the better I believe, I enjoy throwing a wrench into the machine.
True, I worded that incorrectly. I shouldn't have said intentions. In the Apple case of denying access to an IPhone, a crime has been committed, a warrant has been issued and the case seems to be boiling down to whether the government can compel a company to gain access to data that they have allowed to be stored in a manner that prevents that government from seeing it even after a crime has been committed and a proper warrant issued. Something like a safe company refusing to open a private safe after a crime has been committed and a proper warrant issued. If the case is decided in favor of Apple I imagine it will only result extreme efforts by the government to set up it's own "cracking" arm. So do you view these corporations as Draconian and Fascist entities that trample 4th Amendment rights in the same or similar manner as Clinton and Bush in that they are clearly judging my intentions? How would banning U.S. computer science and academics accomplish anything? Why do you think Hillary wants to do this? What draconian surveillance and trampling of 4th amendment rights has she specifically supported or introduced as a law, in your view, while in the Senate or otherwise and is there any dispute, moral, or legal argument to be made for her side of the story in any example you can produce?
This issue can easily get technical, and very academic very quickly. I see your argument, yes if there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and a warrant issued to seize a safe, based on sufficient evidence that they will find specific things inside the safe, okay ... this is completely allowed by law. Thing is that a safe and encryption are not quite the same. A safe is much easier to break into, if you are in physical possession of the safe, an oxy-acetylene cutting torch can do the job. Any thief can also do the same after stealing the safe and moving it to another location where they can do this. Again, this gets academic very fast and this isn't the place to go into the nitty gritty details, but there is no way of just "gaining access to the data", provided that data has been properly encrypted. It's not that they are "denying access" .. it's more like it's not possible to grant access because of the technology they have designed and implemented to make their products secure. You can have a thousand warrant but some things aren't possible to do. It's like asking a hard drive manufacturer to recover data that's been overwritten ... it isn't feasible and can't be done. The hard drive manufacturer isn't refusing to do so, the laws of physics and mathematics are refusing. What they are asking for is for Apple to introduce weaknesses into their products, in which case you may as well not use any encryption at all. Any backdoors and tools the FBI or other government agency can used can be used by any other hacker that has the motivation to do so and knows the right place to look in order to find the exploit and use it themselves, as it will inevitably be discovered and once its been discovered its essentially a 0 day exploit ... forever. At the same time terrorists and criminals will become well aware of this, and find ways to thwart this, such as not using particular products, or using additional layers of crypto (like any person truly paranoid should). Lots of research is being done in academics with respect to improving encryption technology, privacy, and security; such research is being done in many universities, including the one I am a student of. Some of the research being done at my university has to do with improving the TOR network, identifying and eliminating malicious TOR relays (such as those owned by government agencies). People in these fields (whether in academics or industry) understand the implications and generally stand against such invasion of privacy and research ways to improve our security and thwart any tyrannical attacks on privacy and security. I will say though, any terrorist that trust an iPhone or any other smartphone out of the box to provide adequate opsec is a dumb terrorist. No, not necessarily. They aren't forcing my hand ... most places still accept cash and some prefer it so that they can report less on their taxes. I view it as marketing bullshit, which I find unethical. Corporations selling consumer information to other firms, or government definitely violate my code of ethics and should be boycotted ... or taken out back and shot between the eyes. Well, banning computer science and engineering would ensure that future generations are absolutely clueless about technology and likely fall for such ludicrous ideas... it would also prevent all this research currently going on in academics to improve encryption technology and the like. Hillary Clinton claims that encryption is a "problem to be solved", and that strong encryption poses a threat to national security. One facet of computer security is in fact encryption technology, so her claim is logically fallacious. How the fuck can weakening security improve security?
Depends on what you mean by weakening security, what type of security, etc. the statement that there is a problem doesn't seem to be Draconian or a denial of 4th Amendment rights.
Using any form of security that can be feasibly broken is weak, and not secure. The statement that security is a problem certainly seems draconian to me, as it implies vulnerability is preferred. As I have stated, this can get academic quickly, and is probably better a better fit for computers and technology, rather than the politics forums. Terrorists don't respect US law .. they will use the best tech and encryption technology available.
But you are using the example as an attack on Hillary Clinton, not as a general inquiry into problems with computers and technology. So bringing this back to Hillary, and having you say that she is "supporting draconian surveillance and trampling on 4th amendment rights of Americans" based on her recognition of a fundamental problem in regards to electronic storage of data and its recovery when a legal warrant is issued is a tad simplistic presentation of her position and it seems to me you are using it to illustrate that she is not fit to run for President. So it would appear to me that as you present it, it is relevant to this thread.
Storing data in a way that can easily be deciphered IS a fundamental problem in a security context, this is basically the converse of her claim. She is relying on the masses who know little about how computers work and computer security and its implications to fall for this ludicrous bullshit of a claim. Tech firms and anyone studying academics in these fields understand these implications and stand against this sort of shit, but these people represent probably less than 1% of citizens. The government should not have a say in how I choose to store my data (and I'm sure as hell gonna do what the fuck I want regardless of what law she passes ... hah). And remember, criminals don't respect laws ... they will continue to use crypto, the smart ones or ones sufficiently determined or have high opsec requirements will implement a "nuke program", that is code that detects forensic or cryptanalysis, or too many failed authentication attempts and basically nukes the storage medium rendering it dead, destroying all data in a fashion making any recovery attempts .. futile... like you if it detects someone trying to gain unauthorized access overwrite everything with a 32bit word like 0x2BADF001, word aligned of course to make sure its properly interpreted by the viewer lol... probably give them a chuckle when they peek at the hexdump lol. Of course there are other faster ways to do this, overwriting the LUKS header or something similar. I actually wrote a program to overwrite a block device similar in spirit .. i found it amusing Shall we not be allowed to shred documents either, make paper shredders illegal also? Corporations and government cannot be trusted to use technology for the benefit of ordinary people[1] Unless we understand computers and networks, we will be enslaved by corporations and governments that do[1] 1.Dr. K. The Real Hackers Handbook; The Ethics of Hacking. London: Carlton Books, 2011. 20. Print.
Now I'm curious Does using a real phone number and information for a customer rewards program pose a cyber security threat? I do freelance work for a cyber security start up so I'll ask my client about it. I learned to never let a smart phone app use your current location.
Sometimes its best to put the phone in airplane mode ... or leave it at home, depending on what you're doing. (they can trace what towers the phone handshakes with ... thus proving that you were in a certain area at a certain time, etc) I just don't want to give out my phone number to companies ... i can often social engineer my way into getting the "reward card benefits" ... you know provide phone numbers and they search for it and find that that phone number is associated with a rewards card The employees either don't catch on, or aren't paid enough to care. You can bet that information like your phone number, name and address etc is worth far more than any rewards you will get or discounts. Goes against my ethics. Its a way they can track your purchasing habits, and this information is sold to advertising firms for profit.
Yes by all means, let's continue on the path we're on! Why waste a vote on Sanders when you can be totally fleeced by Clinton? At least I haven't been murdered yet -- all in all, things are pretty ok!
