×

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!

Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT?

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the parting-ways dept.

Security 96

hawkinspeter writes "The Register is hosting an exclusive that Bruce Schneier will be leaving his position at BT as security futurologist. From the article: 'News of the parting of the ways reached El Reg via a leaked internal email. Our source suggested that Schneier was shown the door because of his recent comments about the NSA and GCHQ's mass surveillance activities.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

96 comments

Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705459)

I DON'T KNOW

Re:Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT? (4, Funny)

digitrev (989335) | about 4 months ago | (#45705535)

Betteridge's law of headlines strongly suggests no.

Re:Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45707011)

Betteridge's law of headlines strongly suggests no.

And it's an article in The Register. I'm sure it's nearly 50% true.

Re:Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45707669)

His initials are BS. This must mean something.

I want his job! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705653)

security futurologist

In the future, security will include bio-metrics and brain scans. And one day, the IT security will be able to capture the RF of the user's brain electrical signals.

And eventually in the future, computers will be hooked directly into the brain.

I mean really, I'd just read Science Fiction all fucking day long, plagiarize the ideas and then put'em into a memo - BIG MONEY!

Actually, write script to search for key terms in ebooks automatically downloaded from Amazon. of course with luck, I'd get some sci-fi porn and my report would be "He inserted his penis into the security scanner ...."

Re:I want his job! (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 4 months ago | (#45706003)

His job also requires writing things that people want to read. So, you're not really qualified.

Re:I want his job! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45707181)

oh man, has bennett hassleton applied?

Re:I want his job! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45717247)

Oh man, I lol'd. Dat christmas list doe.

I still love Bennett from the Peacefire days when we were idealistic kids, but oh man what a try-hard. I hope /. hires him at some point, as he will be the single happiest person on Earth to be given a job there.

Re:I want his job! (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 4 months ago | (#45711167)

His job also requires writing things that people want to read. So, you're not really qualified.

In other words: his job is actually a marketing role?

Re:I want his job! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45707531)

Why not the use of FMRI as a modern polygraph method where they flash a sequence of images at a high rate of speed and watch for activation in the brain? This already exists. Now, I'm not saying it's scientific--the question of whether or not this introduces proper controls (the primary reason normal polygraph technique is unscientific and merely used as a scare tactic) is still up for debate. But, the door is open.

Re:Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT? (3, Insightful)

auric_dude (610172) | about 4 months ago | (#45705749)

Why not ask the NSA, I'd expect them to know.

Re:Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705857)

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan this comment gets tiresome in every story. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

Re:Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT? (2)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 4 months ago | (#45706077)

But it actually makes sense here, so next time have some balls and dont post as AC.

Re:Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45706271)

Why does it require balls to not post AC? Why hide behind CheezburgerBrown and not use your real name?

And it doesn't make a whole lot more sense in this particular story anyway. Pretty much every story has some issue that has open questions, and most of the stories these days are about personal information, digital comms, etc., and every story some douche has to chime in "I bet the NSA knows" or "it's too late, the NSA knows by now." You can't tell me you think it is clever any more, do you?

Re:Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45706827)

His name is there if you hover your mouse over his username. The NSA probably does actually know, because he's high profile enough to be on a watchlist. I tell you what I don't think is clever, the inevitable, that's been done to death posts after the posts that have been done to death.

Signed,
The NSA knows who.

Re:Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710021)

Why does it require balls to not post AC?

I think the idea is that there's the common belief that when posting as AC the system doesn't track whoever posted the comment and that therefore, posting with one's username might attract attention from the NSA?

Posting as AC - I have balls and want to keep it that way. Oh wait.

Re:Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710255)

I didn't even know he worked for BT. He must have some mad skillz [youtube.com] now.

Speak Your Mind (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705513)

It's OK to speak your mind ... just make sure your resume is up-to-date before hand.

Re:Speak Your Mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705555)

How dare you question my authoritah!!!

Re:Speak Your Mind (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705741)

Dude, this is Bruce Schneier we're talking about. If his resume ever gets out of date, he just generates a block of random bits, decrypts it using the infinite one time pad he memorized in grade school, and voila: an up to date resume.

Re:Speak Your Mind (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#45706261)

"Dude, this is Bruce Schneier we're talking about. If his resume ever gets out of date, he just generates a block of random bits, decrypts it using the infinite one time pad he memorized in grade school, and voila: an up to date resume."

But this brings up: what did they expect from him?

If discussing the NSA and GCHQ was something they didn't want, why the hell did they hire Bruce Schneier? OP strongly suggests that BT doesn't know what the hell it's doing anyway.

Re:Speak Your Mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710073)

It doesn't - they're still floating on the ocean of free cash they sucked from the country back when they had a monopoly.

They have a 1.44MB per month data cap for their fibre lines which cost the earth and they let the NSA eavesdrop. Lol. Suck it down customers.

Re:Speak Your Mind (1)

utkonos (2104836) | about 4 months ago | (#45711169)

BT never hired him. They acquired a company that he founded and was still working for at the time of the acquisition.

Re:Speak Your Mind (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 4 months ago | (#45706031)

Honestly, I suspect BT figured they could get everything they actually want from him for free from his security blog or with occasional contracts, particularly if he's willing to take up an academic or otherwise similarly public gig where his main work and discussion all ends up public anyway.

He can probably make a lot more money running around collecting speaking fees than BT would want to pay him.

Re:Speak Your Mind (1)

rastos1 (601318) | about 4 months ago | (#45711925)

Bruce Schneier is one of the guys who all they need on the resume is the name.

Re:Speak Your Mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45717311)

His resume is Applied Cryptography. He just carries the tome around with him and slams it down on the person's desk with a debonair grin if and when they're stupid enough to ask him for CVs.

Security Futurologist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705525)

Now if there isn't a more worthless job title, I'm not sure what it is.

Re:Security Futurologist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705631)

How about "Senior Proctological Finger Puppet Training Review Specialist Supervisor"?

Re:Security Futurologist (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 4 months ago | (#45706017)

Now if there isn't a more worthless job title, I'm not sure what it is.

"Anonymous Coward" is a strong candidate.

Re:Security Futurologist (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#45706855)


Now if there isn't a more worthless job title, I'm not sure what it is.

It's an awesome job title - it means: "This guy is so froody we let him do whatever he wants with no expectations and we pay him for that."

Even in leaving he makes a prediction (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705575)

We're back to the wild west days of the early Internet. Nothing is secure and new strategies will have to be devised for a model that assumes that no part of a network connection is secure, both in hardware and software. Remember software bloat? Welcome to encryption bloat.

Re:Even in leaving he makes a prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705755)

No, its not the wild west days. Only big players( Government agencies) have the ability to do the crazy stuff that was possible back in ye olden days. Joe script-kiddie haker-child, cannot.

You've not been paying attention then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45706563)

Whatever, you've not been paying attention to the BEAST, CRIME, and TIME attacks. They very well could be accomplished by your slightly above average skript kiddie.

Re:Even in leaving he makes a prediction (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#45705761)

That is a great way of looking at it indeed. Those of us in the early days of WWW can remember when sites with logins would put your user name and password in plain text in the browser address bar, I rememeber being 15 or so and when you would log into a website the info was just out in the open, with info like this you could easily find other peoples info. Now its really no different except for the people cant see it as clearly but the unethical hackers, AKA the NSA can gather it all

Re:Even in leaving he makes a prediction (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 4 months ago | (#45705959)

I wouldn't say we are back to the wild west days. It is just the fact that the foundations made with wood and llama dung have started to crumble, and it is time to move to more solid building materials.

I fear encryption bloat. There was (and is) a lot of crap out there when it came to encryption, be it using AES 256 like triple DES to have 768 bits of key space, except the encryption passphrase was just stored as a MD5 hash, to advertising use of "4096 bit keys", which were really sixty-four 64-bit RSA keys [1]. The author of this program (thankfully an internal use application that was soon chucked once I found this) was clueless and did that due to performance reasons, not realizing the mistake.

Done right, encryption isn't that big of an issue. However, as I've ranted before, encryption is easy... key management is the elephant in the room that all the companies make light of.

[1]: RSA keys are not like symmetric algorithms, and 64 bits is trivial to break. Doing this 64 times gives log2(64), or about six bits of additional security, so 70 bits total, instead of the 4096 bits promised.

Re:Even in leaving he makes a prediction (1)

plover (150551) | about 4 months ago | (#45710661)

A 70 bit asymmetric key is just as trivial as a 64 bit key - keylength.com won't even calculate an asymmetric key shorter than 384 bits, which it equates to 56 bit DES in 1981. I'm guessing based on the 24-graphics-card hash cracker's capabilities that he could factor this number in well under 1 second.

Re:Even in leaving he makes a prediction (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#45706879)

Welcome to encryption bloat.

We have fast CPU's, so the encryption itself is fast enough, but watch out for CryptoEndpointFactoryFactoryFactories.

And always use a popular shared library - you're no good at writing secure code.

Yes, he is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705577)

Does Slashdot bother to read the articles they link to?

Re:Yes, he is. (2)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 4 months ago | (#45706537)

I actually submitted this with a statement as the headline and the editors have decided to change it to a question. I was amazed as I didn't think the editors really existed.

working relationship had come to its "natural end" (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 4 months ago | (#45705645)

Translation: His contract to remain on, after the acquisition ran out.

He may have been the CTO of counterpane, but not enough room for two CTOs of BT after the acquisition.

Naturally, the CTO of the acquirer would normally keep the position.

Re:working relationship had come to its "natural e (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45708787)

In the past BT has often kept on people from acquisitions even though they have no real job for that person. This isn't only for CxO people in the acquired company but can happen to anybody. I ended up in this situation and hung on for 4 years doing not very much but collecting a good salary even by London standards. Eventually though, it gets old and you need to move on.

Perhaps BT also, has woken up to the fact that there are too many people in the company that do not do productive work and they are getting better at identifying those people. When I was there I went through 3 of their voluntary redundancy programs and every time my request to leave was denied even when I took pains to inform my whole management chain how useless I was and how I had no more than a few hours a week of real work to do.

Re: working relationship had come to its "natural (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45711629)

Been there, couldn't take NewStart because I was one of the few who apparently hadn't taken C++ off my CV so had legacy skills.

After the third failed attempt I handed my notice in. There are still loads of folks on the bench going through crap who aren't getting their NewStart :-/

Makes Sense (5, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about 4 months ago | (#45705673)

IIRC, when Schneier sold his company to BT one of the stipulations is that he run Crypto-Gram separate from the company. Up until then the newsletter was essentially published as part of company. BT did not any confusion that the opinions in Cryto-Gram were in any related to BT. So schneier.com was founded.

The other day he posted a story about how the existence of a security threat, even if is not exploited, creates mistrust. So given we know that the NSA and GCHQ are spying, we are naturally suspicious of BT, even if they are not part of the spying. Now if they are ejecting a person critical of the spying, we are even more suspicious, even if they are not doing anything wrong.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

jimicus (737525) | about 4 months ago | (#45706675)

In which case, it makes a lot of sense from Schneier's point of view to leave. Why would you want to hang around a company that's so heavily tainted when your entire CV is based on your being a guru in the field of security?

Re:Makes Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45709949)

You know who Tommy Flowers worked for? CGHQ was formed out of a GPO department

Re:Makes Sense (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 4 months ago | (#45706909)

even if they are not doing anything wrong.

Given that "better safe than sorry" is wise advice in protecting yourself (so long as the safety doesn't infringe liberty), we now can't allow any secrets. We default to the natural scientific skepticism: Prove you are not doing anything wrong, otherwise a person has no evidence to found their trust. Conversely, due to the cybernetic nature of a citizen's position within a larger construct, the governments and corporations must instead assume the inverse hypothesis: Prove they component is doing something wrong, otherwise they have no evidence to distrust or punish them -- their components themselves made of people who are subject to concern of other people more so than the construct which can be rebuilt without people suffering.

Since governments and corporations are potentially immortal organizations it's important that their members not become overly compartmentalized, otherwise the people can be made to do things in contrast to their will to protect and benefit all others. Any such disservice will be perpetrated to the benefit of a few people who seek power over others. It's thus not surprising how the GCHQ's and NSA's compartmentalization through extreme secrecy has created the effect cybernetics predicts. To think none would consider the outcome of a system so designed is folly.

Never forget that cybernetic principals have long been applied to business and government for the efficiency and benefit of all. Be mindful of the power that the mathematics of awareness yields. As with any technology with potential for great good, it can also be used for great evil. This is why corporate and governmental secrets can not exist in a free and equal society: Knowledge is power, so disparate knowledge is corruption by definition. Systems averse to examination and signal rectification are aligned with chaotic evil.

Brilliant on cybernetics, thanks; mod parent up (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 4 months ago | (#45713137)

Brilliant point about corporate and government secrecy and power. I've thought for a while (inspired by the book "Honest Business" by a founder of MasterCard) that an innovation in corporate law would be to insist corporations have no right to privacy or internal secrecy. Makes me think of the "Culture" series where AIs can keep their thoughts private, but all databanks and communications are public (although when an AI "Mind" runs a world-sized ship as a de-facto government, perhaps there are some issues there...)

You might like some related ideas which touch on cybernetic dynamics by Langdon Winner in his book "Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought". He makes a similar point about people being replaceable components in organizations, and if they don't perform to standards, they will be replaced. This limits how humane or long-term-oriented a CEO in a typical US corporation can be, for example. Still, Winner suggests that there are moralities implicit in the things we choose to design -- so he suggests that for large systems, it is not so much that they can be used for good or evil as in that there are implications present in the idea about distribution of power and social implications...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langdon_Winner [wikipedia.org]

And I'd add, there is the risk that the design will emphasize the "irony" in my sig, about great potential for abundance used in ignorance and fear of scarcity.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html [pdfernhout.net]
"Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone."

BTW, not sure fully what it does, but your JavaScript simulation looks cool. Interesting moral issue -- someone perhaps unintentionally creating A-life just by visiting a web page! I did a couple simulations of self-replicating robots myself back in the 1980s, but in ZetaLisp and C.

Might well be true, from your homepage: "We are all the same Universe, each experiencing the one self from different perspectives..." If so, it can still be hard to work out the implications in a universe apparently built around Yin/Yang dualities like fire/ice, meshwork/hierarchy, competition/cooperation, etc. I mention that in my "rant" link included here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4556777&cid=45691707 [slashdot.org]

Mentioning both A-LIfe simulation and corporations, you might find of interest this post I madein 2000 (it mentions simulation earlier):
"[unrev-II] Singularity in twenty to forty years?"
http://www.dougengelbart.org/colloquium/forum/discussion/0126.html [dougengelbart.org]
"Obviously, corporations are not all powerful. The world still has some
individuals who have wealth to equal major corporations. There are
several governments that are as powerful or more so than major
corporations. Individuals in corporations can make persuasive pitches
about their future directions, and individuals with controlling shares
may be able to influence what a corporation does (as far as the market
allows). In the long run, many corporations are trying to coexist with
people to the extent they need to. But it is not clear what corporations
(especially large ones) will do as we approach this singularity -- where
AIs and robots are cheaper to employ than people. Today's corporation,
like any intelligent machine, is more than the sum of its parts
(equipment, goodwill, IP, cash, credit, and people). It's "plug" is not
easy to pull, and it can't be easily controlled against its short term
interests.
What sort of laws and rules will be needed then? If the threat of
corporate charter revocation is still possible by governments and
collaborations of individuals, in what new directions will corporations
have to be prodded? What should a "smart" corporation do if it sees
this coming? (Hopefully adapt to be nicer more quickly. :-) What can
individuals and governments do to ensure corporations "help meet
society's unmet needs"?
Evolution can be made to work in positive ways, by selective breeding,
the same way we got so many breeds of dogs and cats. How can we
intentionally breed "nice" corporations that are symbiotic with the
humans that inhabit them? To what extent is this happening already as
talented individuals leave various dysfunctional, misguided, or rouge
corporations (or act as "whistle blowers")? I don't say here the
individual directs the corporation against its short term interest. I
say that individuals affect the selective survival rates of
corporations with various goals (and thus corporate evolution) by where
they choose to work, what they do there, and how they interact with
groups that monitor corporations. To that extent, individuals have some
limited control over corporations even when they are not shareholders.
Someday, thousands of years from now, corporations may finally have been
bred to take the long term view and play an "infinite game". "

Still, as wealth becomes more widespread, and 3D printing and personal robotics and free information become common, maybe the value of limited-liability-corporations-as-we-know-them to produce goods, services, and information may diminish to the point where there is little value in having them around?

Governments may be a different story though... For a humorous takes on the limits of "open government", see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Government_(Yes_Minister) [wikipedia.org]

Around 2002, I had an interest in making related simulations (based on Charodic ideas by Dee Hock, a founder of Visa), but life intervened (having a kid etc.):
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/simulchaord-discuss [nongnu.org]
"This mailing list is to discuss the project of developing simulations of chaordic organizations,
processes, and systems under the GPL license, with "chaordic" used as
defined by Dee Hock at http://www.chaordic.org/ [chaordic.org] and in his book "Birth of the
Chaordic Age". "

Good luck carrying on the flame of abundance and enlightenment in a world still full of darkness of want and ignorance!
http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/christmas-carol/1951-xmas-ignorance-want.html [cedmagic.com]
-----
'They are Man's,' said the Spirit, looking down upon
them. 'And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers.
This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both,
and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy,
for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the
writing be erased. Deny it.' cried the Spirit, stretching out
its hand towards the city. 'Slander those who tell it ye.
Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse.
And abide the end.'
      'Have they no refuge or resource.' cried Scrooge.
      'Are there no prisons.' said the Spirit, turning on him
for the last time with his own words. 'Are there no workhouses.'"
----

One of the most insightful things I've read on Slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428673&cid=45379181 [slashdot.org]
----
Ahh, predicting the future... (Score:4, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09, 2013 @05:16PM (#45379181)
What we envisioned: Man overseeing the construction robots doing their elaborate dance.
What we got: robotic sensors collect every bit of observable data, so that the man can be put into good use with highest efficiency.
-----

Re:Makes Sense (1)

CaptainOfSpray (1229754) | about 4 months ago | (#45708977)

+we are naturally suspicious of BT, even if they are not part of the spying+

Oh yes they are part of the spying. BT have always been and still are totally interlaced with the UK government, the UK military, and GCHQ. This is one of the times that "natural suspicion" is totally justified.

Who is he? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705675)

And, more importantly, who gives a fsck?

Re:Who is he? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705813)

He is Bruce Shneier, author of Applied Cryptography.
https://www.schneier.com/ [schneier.com]

One of the most credible persons on the subject of cryptography and security in general.

One might expect someone who cares about security to know who he is. If he needs an introduction, you need an education on cryptography.

Re:Who is he? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705909)

And you get an extra stick up your pretentious ass if you knew that BT was British Telecom.

Re:Who is he? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45706387)

Are you sure? When I google him it says he's American, and there's a great picture of his buff bod. Isn't BT something to do with Bitcoin Trading?

Re:Who is he? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45707799)

Buff Bod? Are you confusing him to Chuck Norris again.. that tends to happen..

Re:Who is he? (1)

Larryish (1215510) | about 4 months ago | (#45711529)

Bruce Schneier is so cool, Chuck Norris asks for HIS autographs.

Yes, plural.

Autographs.

He has several.

Re:Who is he? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45716051)

Also, it is theoretically impossible to forge a Bruce Schneier autograph.

Re:Who is he? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45707795)

The "who gives a fsck" still stands.
Really. Unless he was the one posted this, who the fsck care about it.
Why would this material even end up on /.

Still sending out crypto-gram (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 4 months ago | (#45705723)

I have just received the 3rd copy of his December newsletter - all to the one email address that he has for me. I don't know what is happening.

Re:Still sending out crypto-gram (1)

lxs (131946) | about 4 months ago | (#45707693)

the first is from Bruce, the second is from the CIA replicant sent to replace him, the third is a glitch caused by the NSA wiretap.

Re:Still sending out crypto-gram (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45709045)

the first is from Bruce, the second is from the CIA replicant sent to replace him, the third is a glitch caused by the NSA wiretap.

You're right. A déjà vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix.

Re:Still sending out crypto-gram (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 4 months ago | (#45708789)

Haven't you noticed that some of the spaces in the second and third copy are replaced by U+2002 EN SPACE or U+205F MEDIUM MATHEMATICAL SPACE?

Try making a diff and decoding the changes in trinary, you will find a secret note only for you.

Re:Still sending out crypto-gram (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 4 months ago | (#45711671)

Haven't you noticed that some of the spaces in the second and third copy are replaced by U+2002 EN SPACE or U+205F MEDIUM MATHEMATICAL SPACE?

Try making a diff and decoding the changes in trinary, you will find a secret note only for you.

Mine just said "Be sure to drink your ovaltine."

just wanted to let the NSA know (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45705937)

...that I just took a nice big shit and now my anus feels great. archive that, homos.

Betteridge's law of headlines says... (0)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 4 months ago | (#45705999)

No.

Maybe someone should rewrite the headline, since the question mark at the end makes it sound much more fictitious than it actually looks to be.

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says... (3, Interesting)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 4 months ago | (#45706373)

Funnily enough, I submitted this with a different headline. I went with "Bruce Schneier is leaving his job at BT" and put the following (shorter) summary:

"The Register is hosting an exclusive that Bruce Schneier (the famed cryptologist http://www.schneierfacts.com/ [schneierfacts.com] ) will be leaving his position at BT as security futurologist."

Looks like the editors wanted to change it around a bit.

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says... (1)

hubie (108345) | about 4 months ago | (#45707907)

No, there were two submissions, yours and this one by samzenpus. Evidently this got picked over yours. I voted this one down in the submissions area because of the annoying question mark.

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says... (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 4 months ago | (#45707993)

I see. It's confusing that it's got my name in the summary.

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says... (1)

hubie (108345) | about 4 months ago | (#45708675)

No, my mistake. I mistook samzepus as the submitter, not the editor. You are correct. However, I did see two Schneier-related posts in the submissions section. Sorry for the confusion, and you are right, it looks like your original title was altered.

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says... (1)

hubie (108345) | about 4 months ago | (#45708701)

Click on the "submissions" link in the upper-left margin, and then click "older" and you'll see your original submission there.

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says... (1)

Larryish (1215510) | about 4 months ago | (#45711521)

The Slashdot editors suck a big pair of balls that look vaguely like the fuzzy dice that hang from the rear-view mirror of a rusted-out '57 Chevy.

Caveat emptor.

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says... (1)

formfeed (703859) | about 4 months ago | (#45708177)

Funnily enough, I submitted this with a different headline. I went with "Bruce Schneier is leaving his job at BT" and put the following (shorter) summary:

"The Register is hosting an exclusive that Bruce Schneier (the famed cryptologist http://www.schneierfacts.com/ [schneierfacts.com] ) will be leaving his position at BT as security futurologist."

Looks like the editors wanted to change it around a bit ?

Here, fixed that for you.

Are the Slashdot eds being more cautious? (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 4 months ago | (#45710215)

See? That's the big difference (that little hook at the end). Posing the article as a question, you get the benefit of having a scoop (OMFG!!! Bruce the Schneier got fired by the NSA) as far as Slashdot's second-hand stories go, while not getting burned if the story turns out to be false (duh, Bruce isn't leaving).

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says... (1)

Xest (935314) | about 4 months ago | (#45715543)

Given that The Register is actually wrong about at least 90% of things it says then the Slashdot heading and summary are for once probably more correct.

Ian Betteridge says no (0)

Z-MaxX (712880) | about 4 months ago | (#45706259)

If we can trust Betteridge's law of headlines [wikipedia.org], the answer is no, he is not leaving, and yes, a headline in the form of a question does not sound like proper news. Even for nerds. And especially for stuff that matters.

job prospects (1)

Danathar (267989) | about 4 months ago | (#45707551)

I don't think he'll have a problem getting a new job

Re:job prospects (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 4 months ago | (#45711227)

I don't think he'll have a problem getting a new job

Probably not. His mailbox is probably about to be hit with big important companies sending their company's resumes in, to ask if he has an opening to work with them.

Boswell's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710653)

Never believe anything until it's officially denied.

Another Misleading Slashdot "headline" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45712447)

I just read the article from "The Register". The quote from Bruce at the end completely contradicts the falsehood presented in the /. headline.

Way to go /. /. Mis-informing the Internet population for how many years now?

Check for New 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...