Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - How nuclear weapon modernization makes it more likely that nukes will be used (foreignpolicy.com) 2

Lasrick writes: John Mecklin has an astonishingly good piece detailing exactly how nuclear weapons modernization is kick-starting a new arms race, and how modernizing these weapons to make them more accurate and stealthy puts the world at even greater risk of nuclear war: 'Their very accuracy increases the temptation to use them.' The issue is not getting very much attention, but the patience of the non-nuclear states is wearing thin, and a breakthrough in public awareness may be on the horizon: 'The disarmament debate is likely to make this spring’s NPT conference a contentious one and just might be loud enough to make the public aware that a new type of nuclear arms race is unfolding around the world.' If you read nothing else on nuclear weapons, read this.

Submission + - New bill would repeal Patriot Act

schwit1 writes: Two Congressmen have introduced legislation to repeal the Patriot Act as well as end all unconstitutional domestic spying by government agencies.

The article notes that there is bi-partisan support for “doing something” about the out-of-control surveillance of federal agencies like the National Security Agency. I agree. Expect something like this to get passed. Whether Obama will veto it is another question. Despite what he says (which no one should every believe), he likes the idea of prying into the lives of private citizens.

Comment Re:Hmmm... (Score 2, Insightful) 341

So, the take away from this is... what? Any author gets to decide what information does or does not constitute a breach of national security based on what the effect of its deletion on their book sales would be? I for one would sleep more soundly knowing that that information wasn't in his book than I would knowing he was going to get a big fat royalty check.

The take away is that the first amendment exists.

Comment Re:Are the CAs that do this revoked? (Score 5, Interesting) 139

We should. We won't.

A system built around certificate authorities is broken by design. Self-signed certs are much more secure than anything stamped by a CA.
And can we start using client certs, please? I should be able to walk into my bank and hand them a unique cert that they attach to my account and use for verification. Additionally, I should be able to request a unique cert on their end that they use only for my account so I can do my own verification.
Since this is all self-signed shit, it can be easily automated.

For revocation, all either party has to do is stop using/trusting the cert. No one can regenerate the bank's unique cert that I trust because there is no authority with that power. No one can regenerate mine. If the bank wants to issue a new cert, I have to go in and get the new cert and trust it. You can dumb down your trust if you want - the bank could mail you the cert, mail you a letter saying it's going to be changed, post the thumbprint of the cert on their site, to their support phone line, whatever. If I want to issue a new cert, I have to get them to trust me in a similar fashion.

Doing it this way is more work, but you have ACTUAL trust, negotiated equally by both parties. You can choose convenience over security if you want, but you're not subject to some government/CA MITMing everything on a whim.

Submission + - New project lets individuals open source their DNA (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The Open Humans network [http://thestack.com/open-humans-network-open-source-dna-240315] is a new online platform which lets participants share their medical data and genomes for a variety of open source research projects. The project currently has three research partners, including one researching into stomach bacteria, and is expecting interest from a number of potential collaborators. Open Humans project director Jason Bobe said "“It's like open-sourcing your body,” [http://blog.openhumans.org/]. Instead of the standard scrollable disclaimers that usually herald the dismissal of users' privacy, participants must pass a test to prove that they understand the consequences of sharing their most intimate medical information and their DNA with a third party.

Submission + - First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A small ISP based in Texas and an industry trade group have become the first to file lawsuits challenging the FCC's recent net neutrality rules. The trade group, USTelecom, argues that the regulations are not "legally sustainable," while Alamo Broadband claims they're facing "onerous requirements" by operating under Title II of the Communications Act. Such legal challenges were expected, and are doubtless the first of many — but few expected them to arrive so soon. While some of the new rules were considered "final" once the FCC released them on March 12, others don't go into effect until they're officially published in the Federal Register, which hasn't happened yet.

Slashdot Top Deals

Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!

Working...