Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Privacy

FBI Considers CALEA II: Mandatory Wiretapping On Every Device 318

Posted by timothy
from the putting-it-gently dept.
Techmeology writes "In response to declining utility of CALEA mandated wiretapping backdoors due to more widespread use of cryptography, the FBI is considering a revamped version that would mandate wiretapping facilities in end users' computers and software. Critics have argued that this would be bad for security (PDF), as such systems must be more complex and thus harder to secure. CALEA has also enabled criminals to wiretap conversations by hacking the infrastructure used by the authorities. I wonder how this could ever be implemented in FOSS."
Censorship

IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups During 2012 Election 719

Posted by timothy
from the absolute-power-and-absolute-abuse-of-power dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A recurring theme in comments on Slashdot since the 9/11 attacks has been concern about the use of government power to monitor or suppress political activity unassociated with terrorism but rather based on ideology. It has just been revealed that the IRS has in fact done that. From the story: "The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election . . . Organizations were singled out because they included the words 'tea party' or 'patriot' in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said. 'That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review,' Lerner said . . . 'The IRS would like to apologize for that,' she added. . . . Lerner said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. . . . she told The AP that no high level IRS officials knew about the practice. Tea Party groups were livid on Friday. ... In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review. . . Tea Party groups weren't buying the idea that the decision to target them was solely the responsibility of low-level IRS workers. ... During the conference call it was stated that no disciplinary action had been taken by those who engaged in this activity. President Obama has previously joked about using the IRS to target people." So it's not how they choose cases for review (except when it is), and was not motivated by political bias (except that it was). Also at National Review, with more bite.

Comment: Re:Whining. (Score 1) 332

by WolfWithoutAClause (#43649589) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Handle a Colleague's Sloppy Work?

Everything we do has to be peer-reviewed, so the way I deal with it is to simply not approve anything that doesn't meet my standards, and help the person to understand why.

Unless you're the boss, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that you should have personal standards, that you force onto your colleagues to meet them like that.

In a business situation, the organization should have standards, and that's what they should meet. only if they've done something that is not fit for purpose, then yes, you can and should fail the review. But that's not you just not liking the way they've done it, you have to actually have a good reason to think it won't work.

The purpose of economic activity is to make money, not dot i;s and cross ts.

Comment: Re:Theoretical (Score 1) 201

by WolfWithoutAClause (#43633713) Attached to: USAF Hypersonic Scramjet Successfully Scrams

They've tested it at the test rig and it works fine.

The engine has a far easier time than scramjet engines, they should be able to keep the running for hours; good luck with getting a scramjet engine to do that!

SABRE idea has also got a huge advantage that the cycle works with excellent thrust and efficiency from zero speed all the way up to Mach 5.5. Scramjets ONLY work above Mach 4 or so.

Comment: Re:That's what happens... (Score 0) 260

by WolfWithoutAClause (#43605697) Attached to: Energy Production Is As 'Dirty' As Ever

Nuclear doesn't kill people, but fallout causes large areas of land to have to be evacuated, and causes MASSIVE economic damage. The nuclear pushers will claim that modern reactors don't melt down, but there's no good reason to think that that's 100% so. And if it's not, then they will sometimes and the more reactors there are, the more chance of it happening.

Note also that hydro- just ordinary hydro, not pumped- is virtually 100% efficient at storing wind energy; in many cases you just hold back the water and release it when the wind drops. Many hydro systems are now being fitted with bigger generators to make that work better.

Comment: Re:That's what happens... (Score 0) 260

by WolfWithoutAClause (#43605663) Attached to: Energy Production Is As 'Dirty' As Ever

I bet that the turbines can be built better to last much longer.

Environmentalism is always a tradeoff- trading off riverbeds against global warming for example. And the thing about hydro is that it doesn't matter if the hydro is already deployed, wind generally allows you to make better use of it, because when the wind blows you can hold back the water, and the evaporation losses are very small, and so it's very efficient. Pumped storage is OK too, but it's a rather less efficient.

Actually the solar panel thing isn't as good as you'd hope. Solar energy is still much more expensive than nuclear or wind, although it's getting there.

The gas thing, $10 billion sounds like a lot, but it's over 7 years or more, it's not as bad as it sounds, and wind is otherwise cheaper than nuclear anyway. Also, although you probably can get that high pressure front effect sometimes, wind speeds are generally higher in winter. That quote "In winter, when the most intense cold period coincides with a high pressure front, most wind turbines do not work." is only a partial truth.

Comment: Re:That's what happens... (Score 1, Insightful) 260

by WolfWithoutAClause (#43605055) Attached to: Energy Production Is As 'Dirty' As Ever

Not necessarily.

Wind power energy cost is at grid parity right now, and is virtually CO2 neutral.

I mean, yeah sure, wind is intermittent; but it doesn't melt down, and storage can be done with hydro, pumped hydro or electric cars, or you can fill in with a bit of fossil or biofuel when the wind doesn't blow.

Wind power is growing at ~25% per annum. It's only about 3% at the moment, but with that growth rate, it's going to be huge.

Some countries like Denmark are already at 30%, and are aiming for 50%, and Denmark isn't even very good for wind resources (although they're surrounded by hydro, which certainly is good.)

Nuclear is more expensive than wind, and is also poor at load following; you normally find nuclear needs hydro as well; because it's so expensive to build it runs flat out and then the hydro does the load following- nuclear is better for baseload.

When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"

Working...