×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

351 comments

Hrrm.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259174)

I smell a revolution brewing.

Re:Hrrm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259340)

Not really, this is just the influence of the old colonial power trickling down.

Oh dear God I hope so. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259704)

If there was ever a country I hated more than China, it's Pakistan.

And it's not the citizens, it's their fucking corrupt and police-state governments.

Security concerns (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259178)

They have a valid reason to do so, being almost in war with India. VPN's and encrypted connections are mostly used for criminal purposes. If you aren't doing anything bad, why couldn't the government know about it?

Re:Security concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259214)

The trolls don't even try anymore.

Re:Security concerns (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259328)

What? A troll? I thought he was just a Republican...

Re:Security concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259392)

Same difference.

Re:Security concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259558)

Was it a Republican President that tried to foist the clipper chip on America?

Re:Security concerns (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259630)

Was it a Republican President that tried to foist the clipper chip on America?

No, that was the Gipper Chip. And it was delicious.

Re:Security concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259344)

Yeah. If you can't use an encrypted connection, how are you going to spread the truth about that violent pedophile/rapist/murderer Mohammed in the country?

Oh wait that's "criminal behavior" because noting that Mohammed was the 7th-century equivalent of Warren Jeffs is "sacrilege" and "heresy" and "insulting Islam", which are all capital crimes punishable by death in the Totalitarian Cult State of Pakistan.

If you have nothing to hide. Nah (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259256)

I use VPN and encrypted connections almost daily and I don't work for a criminale enterprise [unless you consider corporate America a criminal enterprise – but that is a different question.]. Do you really want your personal and private data exposed as I deal with the outside world?

Or there is just the simpler question of personal privacy. If you have reasonable suspicion, get a warrant. [And yes I know that the Pakistan court system is not very independent – but I am stating a principal here. And yes, I know encryption makes life harder for the cops – but I would rather have the cops work a little harder than sacrifice privacy.]

rethink what you've said (1)

keeptruthfree (147818) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259314)

if you're not doing anything wrong
why not let the government put up cameras in your home

you're not doing anything wrong in the bathroom at home
so why can't the local police have a camera in there?

it's for your safety, it keeps us all safe

are you retarded?

Re:rethink what you've said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259658)

Obvious troll is obvious.

Re:Security concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259334)

Ah, but they can stop that war anytime they wish to, but I guess it is easier to stop VPN than such a fun things as War.

Re:Security concerns (1)

rust627 (1072296) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259512)

And then of course, there is the fact that too many people make too much money from a war

Lets face it, There is much more money to be made from war than there is from a personal citizens VPN (I am sure corporate VPN's will be excepted, or, being pakistan, certain government officials will accept a small courtesy fee to not look at corporate VPN's)

Re:Security concerns (1)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259362)

The not so funny thing about this statement is it can be used with only changing the country names as justification for banning vpn use here in the united states.

Re:Security concerns (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259650)

The US doesn't give a shit about VPN. They have the resources to compromise the normal VPN encryption data stream any time they want.

Re:Security concerns (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259384)

Because it's none of your damned.... sigh, I give up. Take it all. But you get to live in this shitty world too.

Re:Security concerns (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259396)

Assuming for the sake of argument that the government's interests are genuinely for their peoples' better well being, and that they would not ever disclose any private information to anyone else unless the information indicated conspiracy to commit a crime, then for something entirely legitimate, there may not be any particular reason for the government not to know about it. However, there may damn well be a good reason to not want somebody you don't know snooping in on your traffic and is lucky enough to get away without being caught... which if the government has the ability to do, then so would anybody else. The fact that they may have to break the law to accomplish it is entirely superfluous to the problems that could be caused if they don't happen to actually get caught.

Re:Security concerns (2)

lavalyn (649886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259524)

Encrypted connections are used for online banking. Or would you prefer to have a man listening in for your passwords and emptying your bank account with your login?

Re:Security concerns (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259600)

Not to worry. His passwords will be unecrypted too. So all you have to do is sniff his packets and you can get back your money and more!
 
For the humour impaired, that was a joke.

Re:Security concerns (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259538)

well, I hope the Pakistan military isn't connected to the internet then. On another note I actually hope it is and I'm no-longer having any dealings in Pakistan if I can avoid it.

good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259180)

technical game of whack-a-mole

Re:good luck with that (5, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259248)

Yeah, this is pretty much an unwinnable arms race. No matter how much deep packet inspection brute-force they want to employ - If they allow any protocols at all to run unrestricted, it'll be possible to tunnel data over it. Hell, give me an ICMP-only network and I'll encode data payloads into the TTL numbers.

Pakistan is gonna have to cut off its Internet backbones entirely if it's serious about shutting down encrypted communication.

First! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259190)

Does this include systems running the drones invading their airspace?

Re:First! (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259428)

The drones are probably controlled by satellite, which begs another question. Exactly what is stopping someone in Pakistan from talking to a satellite owned by a country other than Pakistan, over a VPN? Used to be expensive as fuck, I can't imagine it's very cheap nowadays, the bandwidth and latency suck, but I'm sure that Hughes is dying to sell you an account. And of course if you're engaged in nefarious, lucrative and very private business then what's a couple hundred bucks a month between friends?

Question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259196)

How can one detect if a packet is encrypted? How do you distinguish unencrypted binary data from encrypted binary data?

Re:Question (5, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259220)

How can one detect if a packet is encrypted? How do you distinguish unencrypted binary data from encrypted binary data?

By checking the "encrypted" bit in the TCP/IP packet header. It's right next to the "evil" bit.

Re:Question (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259398)

By checking the "encrypted" bit in the TCP/IP packet header. It's right next to the "evil" bit.

I say, that's an ingenious bit of protocol design! In other news, the Entscheidungsproblem has been solved. Turns out you just check for the "__does_program_halt__" flag that's present in all ELF binaries.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259710)

Whooooooosh

Re:Question (1)

anomaly256 (1243020) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259430)

'Shannon Entropy'. Although, it is hard to distinguish encrypted data from merely compressed data this way iirc

Re:Question (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259584)

please distinguish a truly random one time truly pad (XOR stream encryption) with just the data from the random number generator alone.

Re:Question (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259636)

It's also trivially easy to add as much redundant data (or, "chaff") as you like to an encrypted stream in order to make its entropy as low as you like.

Re:Question (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259764)

Adding obvious padding doesn't really hide much.

It turns out steganography is hard, once people start looking for it specifically. Staying under the radar, so the ogvernment never thinks to check your traffic for embedded messages, is more of a social engineering excercise, but if for some reason a government takes a keen interest in you, they'll probably be able to detect steganography.

awesome (3, Insightful)

dgas (1594547) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259210)

I'm sure this will totally work out for the government without any blowback or unintended consequences...

Re:awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259262)

Of course there won't be any blowback or unintended consequence, it's Pakistan.

What an opportunity... (5, Insightful)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259432)

If all encryption is being banned, then it should make it trivial to start stealing passwords and bank card numbers from Pakistanis. We don't have an extradition treaty with them do we? Ready, set, crack!

Re:What an opportunity... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259552)

Crack what? Just listen!

no remote workers (5, Interesting)

bugi (8479) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259550)

They won't have anymore telecommuters. One of our workers awhile back was resident in pakistan. No way are we going to let our data over the wire in the clear, so we can't hire from there anymore.

Re:awesome (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259612)

There won't be any blowback because Pakistan is a desperately poor country and people are generally without electricity to begin with, so rules about the internet aren't much concern.

ad-hoc http encryption? (1)

LWolenczak (10527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259212)

Well.... sounds like we need an adaptive add-on to the HTTP protocol for ad-hoc encryption.

Re:ad-hoc http encryption? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259298)

Why?
If you need encryption over http that is called https. The real question might be why you want it over http at all.

Kids these days seem to think that is the only protocol that exists.

Re:ad-hoc http encryption? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259462)

the normal port for http isn't blocked, and one can run any protocol one wants, plenty of better ones than ssl.

Re:ad-hoc http encryption? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259488)

Which has nothing to do with what the GP said as far as I can tell. You can run anything you want over port 80.

Re:ad-hoc http encryption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259580)

Sigh...um because the government BANNED encrypted protocols. RTFA

Re:ad-hoc http encryption? (0)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259694)

Because there are only two possible ways the government could possibly be "banning encryption":

1) with an accept-by-default policy, blacklisting all 'known' protocols for transferring encrypted data (of which SSL is one), or
2) with a deny-by-default policy, whitelisting all 'known' cleartext protocols.

In either case, SSL traffic won't make the cut. With 1), the workaround is super-easy because they can't possibly have an exhaustive description of all encrypted protocols, and it's trivial to devise a new one that lacks whatever features the blacklist is looking for. With 2), the bypass is only very easy because you have to encapsulate an encrypted stream inside a protocol which is "known" as a cleartext one - HTTP being the best candidate because it's among the protocols least likely to get blocked outright.

Dear Pakistan (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259234)

Save yourselves some money and some bother, and just disconnect yourselves from the internet! That way you'll be Safe (tm).

This has just prevented pretty much anyone who works for a Fortune 500 company from doing anything in Pakistan on company laptops. I dunno, maybe that's a good thing? I can imagine that now more than one "elected official" will point to Pakistan as a shining example to follow (just like what happened earlier with RIM and the Blackberry in India and Saudi Arabia and later everywhere) and VPNs will no longer be allowed because of course they could be the tools of terrorists. Damn, why did I have to wake up in this parallel universe 10 years ago.

Re:Dear Pakistan (4, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259364)

Try Fortune $infinity. The company I work for is no where near Fortune 500 or even 5000 and we still could not have anyone work from Pakistan now.

Re:Dear Pakistan (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259466)

Iway avehay evelopedday away ormfay ofway encryptionway
unbreakableway ybay Islamicway Undamentalistfay overnmentsgay.

Re:Dear Pakistan (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259738)

Oh, I can predict where this is going since I work for a consulting company and we have to work on client computers where we don't always have VPN. The answer is HTTPS, unless they want to block all HTTPS traffic as well. Oh yeah, and I assume you can't SSH to or from any Pakistan boxes anymore? That'll work so great for servers, I'd start making my migration plan now...

Re:Dear Pakistan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259810)

C'mon, be a bit nicer. The only difference between the US and Pakistan, is that RSA and other such companies are based out of the US and we probably have the NSA intercepting everything they ever want to.

Remember Google's ex. CEO Schmidt saying (on national TV no less) "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"

Remember Echelon ?

We just act like we have privacy - Pakistanis know they dont.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/fbi-compounds-mystery-with-secret-justification-of-gag-order.ars
http://www.eff.org/nsa/faq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)#Capabilities

Telnet (2)

detritus. (46421) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259254)

Hopefully this is the end of SSH as we know it in Pakistan. Re enable telnet on all those routers and servers, like it's 1996!

Re:Telnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259554)

Looks like it's time for a lot of one-time passwords and weirdly named command aliases.

HTTPS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259286)

I wonder if this will include HTTPS traffic as well. I sure hope so!

use ssh port forwarding (1)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259290)

Or, better, gnugp with email.

Re:use ssh port forwarding (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259332)

How would that be better?
I can tunnel anything via ssh, email restricts you to asynchronous communication.

Re:use ssh port forwarding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259770)

Do you understand what a law is? It's a statement that unless you comply, the government will send armed goons to put your ass in jail, or maybe just shoot you if you make the ass-putting too difficult.

So when there's a law against encryption, which also provides for 100% monitoring of all traffic, and your answer is "let's make obviously encrypted TCP connections, or better yet send obviously encrypted emails!", it leaves me wondering... why the hell do you want to go to jail so bad?

Even rot13? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259308)

Awww crap... now I'm really screwed.

WAIT A MINUTE!

Maybe I can apply for a special permit for rot26!

Re:Even rot13? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259734)

I tried using rot26, but it gives me an index out of bounds error. Fortunately, rot0 seems to work just as well.

OpenVPN, pure TLS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259346)

Take that, technologically-illiterate religious fundamentalists.

An OpenVPN connection is indistinguishable from any other TLS stream.

An OpenVPN daemon can be set to listen on 443, intercepting all VPN traffic and handling it accordingly, passing that which it can't decrypt onto the webserver for further handling.

Short of some impressive statistical analysis I have yet to see in the wild, there is no way to block OpenVPN without blocking every single TLS connection, nor is there any way to determine that TLS traffic flowing to a webserver offering HTTPS services contains OpenVPN mixed in as well.

Re:OpenVPN, pure TLS (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259768)

no way to block OpenVPN without blocking every single TLS connection

Um, I got the impression from the article that that's exactly what they're doing.

Silly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259358)

LoseThos has compression. http://www.losethos.com/code/Compress.html

10 i = i + 1

15 IF i > 99999 THEN i = 0

20 IF LEN(INKEY$) = 0 THEN PRINT ".";: GOTO 10

30 PRINT "King James Bible, Line:", i

God says...
Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: we will not pass
through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of
the water of the wells: we will go by the king's high way, we will not
turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy
borders.

20:18 And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come
out against thee with the sword.

20:19 And the children of Israel said unto him, We will go by the high
way: and if I and my cattle drink of thy water, then I will pay for
it: I will only, without doing anything else, go through on my feet.

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259400)

HAHAHAHAHAHA... OMFG.

no more shopping in pakistan for me (4, Funny)

sneakyimp (1161443) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259408)

Rats. I was planning to make a huge purchase of textiles and smuggled afghan opium from PakistanMallOnline.com with my credit card. Now, since it won't be encrypted, I cannot. Guess I'll have to buy from IndiaMallOnline instead.

Re:no more shopping in pakistan for me (1)

RyanCheeseman (1180119) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259562)

I actually just tried to go to PakistanMallOnline.com ...... i was hoping for some "textiles" ;-D

Asia is the leader in the common people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259412)

Based on current trends, Australia and Britain will be the next to ban encryption, and then the United States will soon follow. Of course this ban will NOT include politicians, celebrities or the executives of large corporations.

Everybody else will have to submit to a virtual urine sample every time they use the Internet.

Not just no encryption -- also logging EVERYTHING! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259414)

The new law not only imposes exciting requirements so that the gov't can monitor all communications for 120 days, but also forbids anyone but the government to "monitor, reconcile, or block any traffic" -- so the ISP, parents, schools etc. are not allowed to do that.

The encryption ban isn't all that impressive, just typical government not-thinking-things-through, and easily enough fixable -- they could add an exception for banks, permitting encryption but the bank has to store the corresponding unencrypted data. FWIW, the requirements pertaining to this may be in place (I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure if that's what the second statement here means, or if it's more a Room 641A thing for international comms passing through):

(6) The Licensee(s) and Access Provider shall ensure that signaling information is uncompressed, unencrypted, and not formatted in a manner which the installed monitoring system is unable to decipher using the installed capabilities.

(7) In case it is not possible to monitor the signaling information of some traffic at the Probe and the Authority has agreed to let the traffic pass through, the required signaling information shall be extended from the Licensee(s) and Access Provider(s) network's premises, at their own cost, including but not limited to the required format conversions, hauling of data to the Authority designated location, and installation of additional equipment to achieve information as specified in subregulation (6) above.

What's really jawdropping is requiring that every fucking byte going through every ISP or telco in Pakistan must be logged for 120 days. In other news, the middle east division of every vendor of massive storage arrays report 1000% increase in sales...

Read the law here (PDF) [pta.gov.pk] , it's only 6 pages.

Re:Not just no encryption -- also logging EVERYTHI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259540)

Wow. We should all just send unsolicited random data to random (Pakistani) IPs. There is no way they could log all that data. You could even send "interesting" data to broad swaths of Pakistani IPs (so as to not draw attention to any single person). That could distract the programs/people who are looking at the data. Maybe give cover to some revolutionaries or something. Who is in?

Re:Not just no encryption -- also logging EVERYTHI (4, Informative)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259732)

Based on my reading of the law (thanks for posting the link to the PDF, AC), you can still encrypt traffic (think banks, online retailers, etc.) as long those who employ it add additional network links to the Pakistani government, pass all traffic to the government and provide them with the appropriate keys. Said additional links and any supporting hardware and/or software to be implemented at the TLS/SSL users' expense.

AFAICT, The 120 days that the OP refers to isn't how long they have to keep the data, it's how long ISPs have to implement the environment.

N.B. IANAL

Stenography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259454)

Now they only need to ban Stenography. Well, first they'll have to detect it...

Re:Stenography (2)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259530)

Detecting stenography is easy, you just look for the person sitting there with the funny typewriter thingy. Now steganography, that's hard to spot...

Satellites? (3, Interesting)

quickgold192 (1014925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259504)

Amid all these internet-blocking stories I still haven't found an answer to how dictators prevent satellite internet connections, or even if they do. I know how they could block them if they wanted to, but does anyone know how they actually do it? Or if they even bother with it?

Re:Satellites? (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259606)

Government edicts don't change reality.

However, if they ever find out, the punishments can range from nothing to "Lets make an example out of you."

Re:Satellites? (1)

Entropy98 (1340659) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259698)

I still haven't found an answer to how dictators prevent satellite internet connections

They look for the dish on your roof.

Re:Satellites? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259724)

Amid all these internet-blocking stories I still haven't found an answer to how dictators prevent satellite internet connections

You there! What are you doing with that dish? You're under arrest!

The problem with using unusual equipment to get onto the Internet is that it is unusual, which makes you stand out.

Does this apply to SSH tunnels? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259520)

TFA and TFS both mention specifically encrypted VPNs, and doesn't make mention of basic encryption systems like SSL / TLS or completely encrypted services like SSH. If this is how it was written to the letter then I imagine an SSH tunnel to a proxy server somewhere else would do the trick.

Though this being Pakistan and not the USA I highly doubt ruthlessly literal interpretation of a law can get you out of jail.

Information want to be unencrypted (1)

hantarto (2421914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259532)

I am think that information want to be free, not encumber by encryption. Encryption should be ban for good of all mankind so that all good idea are free, open and available to everyone. I am think that all government should adopt similar policy. Maybe Pakistan not have best motivation at heart, but I am to like this idea.

We also should abandon money so that people more willing to share idea and not be so greedy haha.

There goes all that tourism (1)

Zandali (2440080) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259570)

No one will want to go there for a vacation or business now, unless they plan on being disconnected and not using credit cards. They have lost their chance at ever getting a Disney theme park for sure now.

Back to the digital stone age (1)

FridayBob (619244) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259628)

Last year I did some work that had to be coordinated with a group of programmers in Pakistan. Naturally they were using SSH to connect to the server they were hired to set up their software on. I can only imagine that companies like that are important for the economy other there. However, if the Pakistani government decides to ban all of its own people from using standard connectivity tools, all of which are encrypted these days for good reason, then they will be shooting their economy in the foot. Next thing we know, it will be impossible for people over there to conduct any more on-line financial transactions. In effect, they will be sending themselves back to the digital Stone Age. Meanwhile, the bad guys will just switch to using different port numbers.

Re:Back to the digital stone age (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259692)

My uncle works for a company that manufactures small to large scale industrial equipment, this stuff has been used world wide from the US military to backwaters in Uzbekistan. All of the PLC's are encrypted because the control codes are proprietary to what they do, and are required to do.

I suppose this applies to that as well, in which case they'll simply stop selling their industrial equipment there as well. Not only are they going for a digital stone age, they're just aiming for a pre-computer age. But then again, we are talking about the pakistani government that's increasingly coming under the control of groups that believe in the 13th century way of life.

Bad Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259652)

Anyone needing to use this technology needs to apply for special permission

It's not all VPN connections, only those which don't have permission. RTFA Editors, you're getting intolerable.

HACKERS OF THE WORLD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259666)

DESCEND UPON the morns and unencrypted and sow destruction and chaos ...no really do it funny as all hell this is.

ONCE again govt shows how detached it is form reality , LETS SHOW EM ALL HOW AWFUL IT IS BEING UNENCYPTED

If they do this, shouldn't they ban Mohammed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259682)

I mean, if pictures of him are so objectionable then by this same logic they should ban everything to do with Mohammed to prevent people from making pics of him?

I'm sure THAT would go over well....

Thank heavens we still have normal code ... (1)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37259702)

Uncle Henry and Cousin Emma are washing the pears. Prepare the spaghetti sauce. Market day is Wednesday. My dog has fleas. The alligator's thumb cannot be in the jam. The dog barks at midnight.

Don't need encryption to send coded messages...

Re:Thank heavens we still have normal code ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259786)

Write a program that wraps a VPN and converts each two bytes to a word from the dictionary and send the text streams as HTTP posts and responses.

Meh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259750)

Who cares what they do in Dumbfuckistan? Anyone with any brains gets out of that place in a hurry.

i think most of you missed a key phrase (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37259762)

in TFA, it mentions a special license for encrypted traffic use. run with that where you may

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...