Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:My Rant For Years (Score 1) 189 189

n one sense of the term secrecy is in itself a hostile action...


Care to tell me what hostile act wearing clothes in public constitutes? Clothes, after all, cover up your body... keep it hidden from view. That's secrecy.

Wanting to keep something private isn't a hostile act... wanting to know something that somebody was trying to keep private can be, however.

Your line of reasoning parrots those who would say that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide...

Except that almost everyone *DOES* have something to hide. Not because they've done anything wrong, but because they have things that are private or personal.

Comment: Re:eSports commentary is already superior (Score 1) 37 37

Ever listen to football commentary or basketball? Its all color commentary or idiotic observations like "team X won because they scored more points"... no shit, fucktards.

You must have lousy sports coverage in your town, or maybe you just haven't listened to a game in a long time. You get continual analytics in most cases, and statistics that actually mean something. Occasionally, you'll get a fossil like Hawk Harrelson who's just a curmudgeon but even in that case, they teamed him with Steve Stone, who can break down pitch location, OBP, WAR numbers, BABIP, FIP and xFIP.

At least in this town, it's the same for basketball and football, though there haven't been as many advanced statistics developed for those sports. Maybe it's just because Bill James got the ball rolling (sorry) sooner for baseball. But all the announcers are pros and not a single one will give you the kind of obvious nonsense you describe.

Even the hockey coverage in town, whether you're listening to John Weideman and Troy Murry on the radio or Eddie Olczyk on TV, these are guys who will drop numbers on you and give you insights you probably wouldn't have noticed even if you were sitting behind the glass.

Naw man, there hasn't been a "Team X won because they scored more points" in a long while.

We don't need analytics

But people who pay attention to e-Sports and aren't dumb fucks like you might have an interest in analytics. Some people who are interested in video games care about more than whether the female announcer is showing cleavage. One minute you talk about how e-Sports announcers are so great because they give you the "micro" in Starcraft, and then you say you don't need analytics. Do you know what anaylytics are? And did I mention that you're a dumb fuck?

Comment: Re:Cameron's wet dream is unattainable (Score 1) 189 189

The UK has the option to revert to the 1950's and have massive numbers of expensive undercover, informant, police, special forces teams in every community per village, town, city.
Find, follow, attract, use front groups (peace, human rights, anti war) and attract interested people in and give them safe busy work 'issues' over decades.
Anyone with any state connection would have understood network tracking since about the 1970's know to avoid any of the new hardware of software methods.
The other issue the UK has is CCTV and cell phone tracking. Any member of the press, a lawyer going out can be tracked and any meeting they have can be noted.
Networked office equipment, new office computer equipment that arrives been ordered online is another way in.
It all comes back to staff numbers the UK can offer good wages to for the skills of tracking most people within the UK for decades.
Hire too many new staff with skills and the UK cannot trust the vetting. The UK has a long issue with trying to secure its own gov workers.
The UK faced staff issues, working conditions and wage claims from its gov staff over many decades (1950's-early 1980's).
Growing the staff count to watch all of the UK all the time might be a budget and vetting issue long term.
Why watch everyone when the UK has front groups that can draw people in?
The UK will have an interesting question soon, find the cash to pay contractors and gov staff to watch the entire nation or find a very easy way to watch front 'groups' in the community.
Front groups are very tricky to keep public enough to attract new members but well away from the press and citizen journalists asking questions. re "Or they can just go into the woods and whisper to each other." The UK would offer both people a lot of cash/deals. Cell structures are easy to turn given time and a lot of cash. Once a few cells get turned the entire can be uncovered and turned.

Comment: Re:Easy to defeat (Score 1) 189 189

Yes other governments will just enjoy secure one time pads, distant public radio broadcasts and number stations for all their international staff.
The result is just another huge investment in contractors as the UK offered in the 1970's, 80, 90's, 00's to track all emerging and long term digital networks.

Comment: Re: "Or Tor?" (Score 2) 189 189

The ability of the UK to reconcile every network packet in and out of the UK makes any message sent from an UK ip to an UK ip in the UK an easy daily database task.
The random path around the world does nothing to hide the UK origin and UK destination ip at a service provider level (a persons ~modem like device/residence/cell /phone id).

Comment: Re:No surprise human rights are the first target (Score 2) 78 78

That was a given for the UK in Ireland from the 1960's on. All human rights groups, Irish peace groups, legal teams, Irish lawyers where under constant watch.
A lawyers ability to speak to gov issues, UK policy, cite international conventions in public, to contact the US and UK press on issues had to be contained.
How or why this generation of UK based legal teams and human rights groups thought they had been granted some fancy new freedoms is a real mystery.
The UK has always watched, shaped and infiltrated any groups of interest going back to WW1.
The internet has only made the network into legal teams digital files more simple. Cell phones allow the tracking of all meetings between lawyers and the press or people seeking legal help as they enter any office. The cell phone is taken to meetings?
UK based legal teams should have understood the longterm UK policy on peace groups and humans rights issues has never changed.
The history surrounding Irish legal policy was in the UK press, books and media over the past two decades.
The how (all phone and digital networks), why (collect it all) and when (collect it all) are easy questions.
Why where people in the UK legal profession not aware of the policy and powers to spy is the UK question given the amount of policy and history ?
UK lawyers may want to consider how the Irish files and legal meetings where used, tracked and the wider UK policy.

Comment: People like Cameron don't seem to get it... (Score 3, Insightful) 189 189

... That even *IF* we could, however hypothetically, completely trust the government to not abuse the ability to eavesdrop on private conversations, and that the government had absolutely no security leaks whatsoever....

Again, I stress that *EVEN IF* absolutely everything was working exactly as such a government intended...

... it is unavoidably true that if the government has the ability to break your encryption, however altruistic they may claim their intentions to be, then so can the bad guys... people with less benevolent intentions, who will abuse that information, and cause harm to completely innocent parties.

This is because laws don't actually *stop* people from breaking them, they only ensure that something that is considered appropriate punishment will follow when people do. Unfortunately, such punishment cannot always negate the effects of the harm that was done while someone broke the law in the first place.

And again, this is even *IF* their system for eavesdropping on encrypted communications was function as best as they can possibly intend.

So hey, Mr. Cameron.... I can sincerly appreciate that you might have the very best of intentions, but your goals will deprive entirely innocent people of the ability to even have the most rudimentary protections from people that will use the same abilities that the government has, however illegally, to cause very harm to people who have done nothing wrong except to follow a law that says they are not allowed to take precautions against such means.

Comment: Re:I have another way (Score 1) 457 457

Microsoft has two solutions; only share passwords using their Wi-Fi Sense service, or by adding "_optout" to your SSID.

Or, just don't use windows 10. I think I may have found the answer there.

Also, don't give your SSID to anyone who does or might in the future use Windows 10, or have a Windows phone.

We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion