But unfortunately open source is not written by professionals, but ideologically driven amateurs and other random hobbyists.
That's not a fair generalization. Though there are plenty of "ideologically driven amateurs" — especially in the Linux (compared to BSD) world — they are mostly found among the noisy advocates, rather than actual developers.
Fixing this bug will be humongous amount of work, and there are likely to be even more like it in OpenSSL
Somewhere higher up the bug is described as a "simple bounds check" — which would be easy to implement. The truth is, probably, in between somewhere.
I am sure NSA know several more bugs like this that remain undisclosed.
NSA, I am sure, know plenty of holes — if not custom-made by the authors doors — into proprietary software too.
I am disappointed at the quality of open source software — especially pieces as famous and fundamental as OpenSSL, and I agree, that open source's claimed advantage of there being "thousands of eyeballs" verifying its correctness is overblown.
But to declare it to be "losing" is a silly jump just as far in the direction opposite to the enthusiastic proclamations of the above mentioned ideology-driven advocates.
Yet another case of government knowing better, what we are allowed to do with our lives and properties.
And, of course, let's not forget the hotel-room taxes it is losing from this "illegal" activity — and all the salaries of the unionized hotel workers, who, like all unions, are dear friends of the big government these days.
I'm not sure I would trust the opinion of someone that thinks the TSA is the main regulatory body of civilian aviation.
They aren't — they are just the agency, that makes flying such a miserable experience... Regular air-travel would've been just fine, had it not been for TSA's routinely degrading treatment of passengers.
And I doubt, they'll let these flights alone for long — not if the idea catches on.
There are two main reasons for this: up-front costs and legal obstacles.
An obvious case of market failure. We need new laws and regulations so that the caring, omni-scient and selfless government officials help the would-be newcomers deal with the existing laws and regulations.
Better yet, let's have a single-payer ISP...
Except the 1st doesn't trump the 4th.
As with the First, the Fourth only protects citizens against the government — not from each other. It is thus irrelevant to the topic at hand.
That is, allowing you to walk into my home does NOT automatically give you the right to record everything you see there.
As a matter of fact, you do — unless you ask me not to, I am allowed to record whatever I am allowed to see. It may be impolite of me, but it is legal. But this is not related to the article, so let's not stray too far off-topic.
The problem with your reasoning is that its based on 'endless war' thinking that's normally out of place in a civil society.
I don't see, what "civil society" has to do with this thinking. Or, perhaps, our enemies in Russia and among the Al Qaeda folks aren't "civil".
Either way, the enemy really is out there, is dreaming about — and actively working on — causing us harm.
Honestly the freedom of speech that was being protected in that case were of the women, not of Flint.
Distinction without (much) difference. Point is, publishing a picture — pornographic or otherwise — is speech...
it might a violation of copyright
Your image is not copyrighted — or else paparazzi's trade would've been illegal. But we already have laws against copyright violations (if any), so why the new bill?
If we did accept your argument, then we would also have to accept that it would be a violation of free speech to film film young girls in a dressing room or to take covertly film women going up an escalator so we can see up their dresses.
My argument is that, generally, whatever can be legally seen (and peeking into a dressing room is illegal), can also be legally recorded (and the recordings subsequently published). Any laws to the contrary violate the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And, as we learned from "People vs. Larry Flint" (and other, less popular, sources), porn is speech...
However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...
Yes as US gov protections in place for just such legal events eg safe from US gov surveillance without a warrant.
Snowden's published revelations cover much more than (admittedly reprehensible) warrantless spying on US citizens. For example, he revealed NSA's capability to record all telephone traffic of a foreign country.
Anyone alerting the Germans in 1943, that Enigma is compromised, would've been (justly) denounced as a traitor... What changed?
The difference is that Station X weren't intercepting British communications and spying on what people said to the butcher.
Only because they could not.
While we're at it MI5 didn't torture people and then lie to Parliament about it.
NSA has not tortured any one either.
Systems programmers are the high priests of a low cult. -- R.S. Barton