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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Probably. (Score 1) 572

Probably. And I honestly don't give a shit if they do. The only thing I browse at work are work related sites. The only thing I care about is when the stupid firewall blocks me from getting to a site which I'm only trying to access for work reasons. Still, that does at least let me send sarcastic e-mails to IT.

Comment Meh (Score 2) 198

Meh. It's not like most people pay attention to the domains. They just go to their search engine of choice and type-in "Canon" (or whatever they happen to be looking for) and if they can be bothered they look for the most useful result or just click on the first one if they can't.

Comment Re:Motherboards (Score 2) 237

Yes he would, because his job and vetting level allowed him unsupervised access to materials at that level of protection. The flaw in their system was either their vetting - I have no idea if there was anything in Snowden's past that should have given them a reason to consider him unreliable - or that his access was unsupervised.

The problem with requiring supervised access to materials or infrastructure you (potentially) routinely access as part of your job is you've just doubled (at least) the number of people you need to do anything. Basically any system of security is going to require that at some point you have to trust people, otherwise the entire system becomes an unworkable nightmare and no-one can get anything done.

Comment Re:Saving face? (Score 2) 237

There are very rarely armed military personnel at UK airports. Them being there is highly unusual and worthy of comment. The uniformed armed people you usually see at UK airports are regular armed police. Although that itself is unusual in a national context (though not at airports); our police aren't routinely armed (it's in fact a specialization you have to qualify for).

Slashdot Top Deals

The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!

Working...