What the fuck? A government checking the code it runs on computers with sensitive data is "national socialist"? You think the United States government doesn't do this on CIA and DOD computers? Or are you a nut against building roads?

We're talking about doing this only for government computers used for sensitive government data.

So right! You could just save yourself $5000 and run Linux.

It was the fire department from the next town over, where the people are smart enough to pay for a fire department. I bet that guy spent plenty of time going on about the stupid democrats in the next town over who pay higher taxes so they have a fire department. Well I guess he found out the hard way why they don't mind their taxes paying for a fire department in that town. Why should the good people of the next town over pay for nearby towns who aren't willing to set up their own fire departments, volunteer or otherwise?

If you have record of it, the question is moot. The government has every right to issue a warrant to confiscate every physical object from you think is evidence (like your written copy of the encryption key). What they can't do is try to force you reveal the contents of your mind against your will. Where you hid the written copy of the encryption key is also protected by the 5th, so the government will have to find it without your help.

It's about how the state would force you to give up the information not whether the state has a right to that information. Breaking down your door isn't a big deal, however torturing someone to force them to revile a password is. The state is forbidden from trying to force a suspect to reveal the contents of their mind, because of how the state would have to force information from a person, not because of whether or not the state should be able to use that information.

The 5th amendment protects the contents of the mind for a reason. The real purpose of the 5th amendment has nothing to do with the right of a suspect not to harm his or her self; the purpose of the 5th amendment is to act as a prohibition against torture. The fifth amendment is really about the right of a suspect not to be harmed by the state in an attempt by the state to extract information from the suspect against their will. Waterboarding and imprisonment for a long periods of time without due process of law are exactly the types of things the 5th amendment is meant to prevent, so by the spirit of the law, passwords should be protected.

Not when your using active directory. You can't use your desktop to share with other users without the admin's permission.

What the fuck is with no web GUI like every other router on the planet? Forcing you to install unsupported apple crap to administrator the damn thing on Windows, which is nearly impossible to administer from Linux. Such a damn pain.

Fuck no, their cookies are denied too!

Web browsers should work on a default-deny basis for everything but html.

Between VPNs and the number of employees who take laptops home, but don't have access to sensitive data because they don't work on anything sensitive, I'm willing to bet 70% of corporate laptops don't have sensitive data on their hard drive, and the 3% don't have competent IT departments. Not every corporate laptop needs to be encrypted.

They aught to be using more than one factor of authentication if they expect their system to be secure. Facial recognition (by a human guard) and the card, passcode and the card, or some other factor to prevent a stolen or forged card from being a security risk.

It wasn't google employees it was end users with google accounts who installed the malware.

I saw that crash a computer this summer. A lady called tech support and said "my computer crashes when I check my email" surprise, surprise, she had a 8GB HD, and 6GB .pst file. The rest was the OS, programs, a few pictures and swap. It also had 128MB RAM and a sticker that said "Windows 98". I told her to buy a new computer.

I would kill for more Deep Space Nine. Yeah, I know, the books. The Dominion War in DS9 was the true hayday for Star Trek and science fiction. It was all downhill after that.

That's another issue. Considering that issue what the article is about is completely pointless to discuss. Yeah, you can do that, so who cares if you can remove someone's finger prints and surgically implant them onto someone else, when you can just spoof the finger print reader?