Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Before it's too late (Score 1) 158

So long as communication is only one way I agree that it adds some protection. At least in this one case. Number stations are a prime example of this sort of thing. Assuming your partner responds to your broadcast with a wireless transmission of their own and that such transmissions are being monitored it wouldn't take long to establish communications patterns in the radio broadcast themselves however. If they are recording broadcasts from multiple locations (Hey, lets put all those emergency repeaters across the country to good use!) then triangulation becomes fairly simple. The people involved would need to use separate transmission mediums that can't be cross correlated to effectively isolate themselves from one another. Other wise if one of you becomes a target as soon as some one looks at the data and says "Hey, these two encrypted stations appear to be communicating in response to one another" the white vans start roaming your neighborhood.

Comment Re:Before it's too late (Score 1) 158

Lets first make the assumption you can find a safe device to begin with. Once you bring strong encryption into the picture the transmission medium is un-important. You must assume all encrypted traffic will be public, HAM certainly is. Either your encryption is strong enough to deal with the public scrutiny or it's no more effective than your "Tin foil hat" solution.

That said it is difficult to say that any telecommunications device is actually secure. The hardware it-self could be configured to make breaking encryption performed on it easier. Simpler yet to allow access to any communication or storage pre-encryption.

Once we fall into that rabbit hole though you had best be prepared to make your own chips to put in your home brewed HAM equipment because it's turtles all the way down.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 264

I don't think your very familiar with the Libertarian Party. The only way they become more GOP like is if your looking at a purely economics based platform.

Libertarian's are typically small government. They adopt those policies from the standpoint of personal liberty though. They believe you should have the right to smoke, believe, say, or sleep with whatever or whomever makes you happy so long as the consequences of your actions are mainly yours to bare.

The Libertarian social platform is far more leftwing than the Democrats (if you can even call Dem's left wing these days). What they typically are not is progressive. Libertarians were the first political party in the nation to adopt same sex marriage as an issue, in the 70's. I'm not that old and I've been around long enough to have heard Democrats call them insane for it.

That said it would be against Libertarian philosophy to use the power of the government to punish say a caterer for refusing to cater a same sex marriage. That is usually where the Dem's and Libertarians part ways.

Comment Re:What's the answer? (Score 1) 134

SMS verification is a form of 2fa. Not all 2fa is SMS based. In fact SMS is generally regarded as weakest and least desirable form of 2fa. TOTP is much better and can be done with a phone based client like Google's. I use a combination of TOTP, hardware token based 2fa depending on what the site supports. All sites should be prodded to support hardware token based 2fa.

Read about FIDO U2F to better inform yourself of the options that exist and where things should be heading.

Comment Re:Consciousness is not the same thing as free wil (Score 1) 285

This is of course all baseless theory since it has no grounding in fact.

If you where to create a simulation advanced enough to create sentient inhabitants (likely as a byproduct of it's full purpose) it stands to reason that it would be based off tech far in advanced to our own current levels. Even now we are working on developing systems that move beyond simple binary decision making. I would imagine the system having a rule keeping AI with the universal physic programed into it and allowing all other AI's in the environment to grow organically (so to speak).

Comment Re:Consciousness is not the same thing as free wil (Score 1) 285

As you said, assuming for a moment free will can and/or does exist it's entirely plausible under some theories of the universe that a middle ground could as well.

For instance some people now theorize the entire universe could be a giant computer simulation. In such an environment some decisions could be left to free will while others are hard coded (not that I actually believe we are all sims). We can theorize the purpose of such a system would be to ensure some specific conditions in the sim are met.

Even in a far more likely base organic reality it's feasible that some processes may be genetically hard coded into our actions while others are not.

Comment Re:Glad to see it's bipartisan (Score 1) 212

I've given this matter a lot of thought and I believe what we see is the result of people generally being unable to accurately and easily understand complex issues outside their field of expertise. When this occurs it seems to be human nature to defer to a trusted authority when forming ones opinions.

We see this in all sorts of issues like climate change (I see it equally on both sides of the debate) where the majority of people are arguing from "facts" that are given to them instead any real understanding of the science. Their knowledge in the area is only deep enough to allow them to parse the opinions of the trusted authority.

For most of modern history the US government has been considered a defacto trusted authority on legal matters. When a congressman doesn't talk about an issue or just regurgitates some talking points their constituents take that as everything they need to know about the issue.

I think it's always been this way. The change has been in trustworthiness of our "Trusted Authorities" and the ease with which dissenting opinions can be presented with equal ease.

Comment Re:And the next time you see a Code of Conduct (Score 1) 669

The reply wasn't in regards to the definition of fascism. You said that Hitler was the archetypal fascist. I explained to you why that is wrong. It doesn't matter how you define fascism Mussolini is the archetypal fascist. On a side note I don't believe the party name of one of the three WWII axis powers is in any way shape or form archaic. Unless they don't teach WWII in history classes any more. Do you believe Nazi is archaic?

Comment Re:And the next time you see a Code of Conduct (Score 1) 669

You realize Hitler literally wasn't a fascist. Hitler was a National Socialist and an Authoritarian. The term fascist comes from an Italian root word meaning a bundle of rods tied together. It was originally used by unions and trade associations in Italy to represent strength in numbers. Mussolini used the term and it's association with an ancient Roman symbol of rods tied around an axe in the founding of his Fascists party. All association of the word with authoritarianism and oppressive government come from him not Hitler. Mussolini is literally the archetypal fascist because he invented the term in it's current political connotation.

Comment Re:Simple counter-measure (Score 1) 176

The two arguments couldn't be farther apart. The OP's statement is an action plan for dealing with the consequences of a potential leak of personal information, not an excuse of the perpetrators actions. The statement the "If you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" is a justification of the state sponsored invasion of privacy. It is by definition an excuse of the perpetrators action.

Comment Re:dump trump (Score 2) 686

"which is safe enough because rural populations are very sparse and small arms are really only dangerous with large numbers behind them" Last year there where 750,000 hunters in the state of PA alone. They constituted the 7th or 8th largest body of armed men in the world. If I remember correctly Wisconsin came in second with 650,000. My own state of WV had around 250,000. That's 1,650,000 hunters in three states. According to the all knowing Google there are currently 1,369,532 troops in the US army. That's right, taking into account the hunters in only three of the fifty states and leaving out the hobby shooters, gang bangers, and dedicated militia types leaves you with an armed body larger than the US Army. The number of functional firearms in the US is estimated to be close to the total population count. That means in theory the population of the US independent of it's government is capable of equipping an army of 300 million people. My point is only that you presume the armed populace to be smaller than it actually is.

Comment Re:Next item on tonight's news... (Score 1) 142

First remember that the constitution does not grant or restrict any rights. It places defined limits on (originally just) Federal power. It's been clear since at least the Dread Scott case that the SCOTUS considered the 2nd to be a personal right. They determined that one of the effects of granting Scott's petition would be to grant the baring of arms to the "negro" races. As to state laws, until the 14th the constitution was in general assumed only to apply to the federal government. The recent change has been a strong "gun rights" movement int his country taking state laws that are in violation of the 2nd to the SCOTUS. I fully expect the 1986 Hughes amendment to be on the chopping block soon. It is a clear violation in the same vein as the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 creating a defacto ban for the common person by restricting access to otherwise legal products.

Comment Re:The hawks are either vicious or stupid (Score 1) 294

By and large HIPAA is followed because not doing so would open a person up to losing their jobs, their medical license, and possibly being sued. Just because there are way's someone can violate the law anonymously doesn't invalidate the law. The important thing is that the consequences be so harsh the majority of people would never dare. The fact that some people may get away with it doesn't mean we shouldn't make an example of any one who gets caught it means we should make a bigger example of them.

Comment Re:The hawks are either vicious or stupid (Score 1) 294

There absolutely is. We currently do this with medical records and PII for example in the form of HIPAA. You create a classification for such data, lets call it Sensitive Classifiable Law Enforcement Intelligence or SCLEI. Next you make it illegal for any one with access to SCLEI to share such data in any circumstances not explicitly allowed for in the law. Now you simply ensure the law only allows for sharing SCLEI in the context of an (?international?) terrorism investigation and possibly exclude sharing in domestic criminal cases explicitly. You should also ensure embedded mechanisms for external over site and increased penalties for coverups of collusion. This may not be 100% effective but it would be every bit as constitutional under the First Amendment as HIPAA.

Slashdot Top Deals

"my terminal is a lethal teaspoon." -- Patricia O Tuama