Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Have any of you even read the text of the bill? (Score 2) 153

by Harkin (#43438387) Attached to: Google, Apple Lead Massive List of Companies Supporting CISPA

Could you provide a link to the relevant executive order stating this? If it wasn't obvious I'd like to read it. Like not joking, I can't seem to find anything official which makes this definition in a legally binding way.

Okay so the important thing here is that there are protections for U.S. Persons which the rest of the world does not enjoy. If you are a citizen of the United States of America none of what your speaking about applies as there are overriding edicts. However, if your not a U.S. citizen then well, you don't enjoy the protections of the U.S. Constitution unless you fit a specific set of conditions. Sorry. Have you considered immigration? I kid. No you have to look to the laws and polices of your local government (if you have one) to determine what protections you have (if any) under any possible treaties with the U.S. your government might have. I have a hard enough time just trying to keep current on U.S. Law to intelligently respond to international policy.

There can be exceptions to this like Treason as committing treason is a felony and results in loss of many of the protections afforded by our system. The conviction in absence is kinda complex in this regard. Further, aiding the enemy is sufficient ground to “cap yo ass”. For example, lets say we were in a war and you decided to wear the uniform of the enemy and shoot at U.S. Troops. You will likely be treated like an enemy combatant even though your a U.S. Citizen.

Comment: Re:Have any of you even read the text of the bill? (Score 1) 153

by Harkin (#43436855) Attached to: Google, Apple Lead Massive List of Companies Supporting CISPA
The statement that the law says ever the government wants it to say isn't EVEN SLIGHTLY SANE. If the government is going to do what ever the hell it wants regardless of the law then why does anyone care about what laws are passed? By that point of view spending time here on slashdot arguing is a total waste of time better spent building TINFOIL HATS.

Comment: Re:4th Amendment disappears (Score 1) 153

by Harkin (#43436845) Attached to: Google, Apple Lead Massive List of Companies Supporting CISPA
Good lord man you obviously have no understanding how law works. Even if an entity were to share information which violates the 4th amendment, the government is bound by both law and executive policy to mitigate it by removing the information. How is this post even slightly Insightful, it's entirely incorrect.

Comment: Why is this even a question. (Score 1) 220

by Harkin (#43353627) Attached to: Should the US Really Limit Chinese-Government Influenced IT Systems?
Security aside, lets send our tax dollars to Chinese companies? Sure it saves the government a buck but saving money isn't the governments job. In fact one might argue its primary job is spending our tax dollars in ways that stimulate the development of domestic technology and jobs. The problem is, almost all the money goes to the Chinese anyway because most of the components are manufactured there. In the end both systems subsidize their domestic production, just here Uncle Sam demands something in return.

Comment: There are totally sockets for BGA (Score 1) 1009

by Harkin (#42100159) Attached to: Is Intel Planning To Kill Enthusiast PCs?
BGA packages have sockets just like LGA does and they come in the required pin count. Really the primary difference between an LGA and a BGA is the BGA is an LGA with little balls of solder already on the lands which make it easer to reflow onto a board but is by no means a requirement that it be soldered down. Currently if you want to solder a LGA you have to ball it first. Frankly I think this is a move to unify the chip packaging as they already offer BGA version of some of their CPUs why not make them all BGA and then the OEM builders have more options for mobile systems. The socket takes up a lot of height when you consider companies are fighting over millimeters.

Comment: Is this what you really want? (Score 1) 312

by Harkin (#41004315) Attached to: Police Don't Need a Warrant To Track Your Disposable Cellphone

Here's the deal. It's federally legal to receive on any band. IE I can receive on military bands, police bands, what ever band I want. It's only transmission that is regulated. As a side note, the radar detector mess is state level not federal and even then quite questionable. Keeping that in mind, if you are going to carry around a device which emits a unique signal that can be triangulated using a couple of USRP's with some cheap GPS units to get receiver location and timing â" expect to be triangulated. Hell, such a system could be built using a couple DTV tuners and the RTL-SDR module which can handle GPS AND Cell phone bands and they cost $20 a pop. Admittedly the bandwidth is narrow but its not the data thats interesting, just the signal.

It is entirely 100% legal for law enforcement to track your cellphone without a warrant if they are not using the carrier (not signal) to do it. The implications of making this illegal would be far worse then marginal protections it would grant.Here's the deal. It's federally legal to recieve

Comment: The problem is money. (Score 1) 157

by Harkin (#40655843) Attached to: Defense Expert: Hire Hackers and Wage War

Last I checked I'd have a hard time considering most of the people arrested by the FBI "world class" hackers. The majority of Black Hat hackers are generally scriptkiddies. Most of the best (the ones who do it to see if they can) are either Grey or White already work for a security firm which pays FAR better then the government would. If the gov wants to hire the best hackers then they need to start offering better pay then giving the excuse âoeyou get the warm fuzzy feeling that your protecting your country, isn't that worth at least 20% or more?â

Comment: FISA WHAT? (Score 1) 221

So who here has read the FISA act? How about we just go with what FISA even means. Anyone?

The foreign intelligence surveillance act specifics law for reporting on foreign actors which, last I checked, does not include US Persons. As opposed to the Fucking Idiots and Shitfurbrains act which also protects the rights of US Persons because most of them are such frigging morons it's considered a waste of taxpayer money to wiretap them. Seriously, READ THE FING LAW BEFORE YOU TALK ABOUT IT. Otherwise your just operating on assumptions and ya, you know how that ends.

Comment: Re:310 Million +, encryption means naught (Score 1) 221

Oh man if that only worked. I had an idea like this on the crapper a few weeks ago. Turns out that condensed matter, though cool on the surface (super conducting?), is a total harpy one angstrom down. Building a QC using feigenbaum's number might work but only if you could observe the perturbation in the field statics which otherwise looks Bayesian. Which as it turns out is symmetric about the mean so unless you know what the answer is from the start you can't determine the state. Same reason why the quantum delayed choice time loop right answer generator fails. Oh man if that only worked...

Comment: How would you do this? (Score 1) 128

by Harkin (#40291269) Attached to: US Senators Concerned With Surveillance Bill "Loophole"
"that the administration hasnâ(TM)t been able to estimate how many people in the U.S. have had their information reviewed under the program." So unless I'm mistaken I pretty sure communications going through other countries don't have some kind of "this is a us comms" tag. Ya, you MIGHT be able to use an IP but with the nature of the Internet and routing it's pretty easy to get that mucked up. So that said, how do you count the number of communications collected on US persons if your not sure where they came from? That said, even if you are filtering on IP then all anyone would need to do is connect to a US based proxy and WOOOO it's bannananananana time. I have no idea what that means.

Comment: Re:Title 50 people (Score 1) 616

by Harkin (#39818843) Attached to: House Passes CISPA
True, the past was the wild wild west of intelligence. However, we now have laws some of which where specifically created in response to the incidents you linked to. Take the FISA, there are liabilities associated with violations which could be levied against a telco if they where to provide information without a warrant. This law moves that liability unto the collecting agency, so someone is still liable if the law is broken but it is better defined who that person is. One thing to remember though, there is a big difference between collection and reporting. It is possible that your communications could be collected given the nature of the interent, however that collection can not be reported on. There is also the second possibility that someone could be collected against in error. IE, appeared to be a foreign actor but was in reality a US citizen. I would assume this has to occur, because there are provisions for that and they are not, go get a FISA and continue collection like nothing happened. There are a massive number of protections that we have as citizens that most people don't even realize they have. Mostly this is cause by a lack of understanding / even attempting to read the law. That is not to say we have a perfect system, the laws regulating the TSA need some serious lovin.

As for trusting the government, it wasn't a question. Either you do, and can have a meaningful conversation about the law or you don't and there isn't a point as then it doesn't matter what the law says.

We live in a democracy, it is our responsibility to understand and act upon the law to the best of our ability and that doesn't mean, oppose all laws. Like most things in life there is a balance. I believe that security and freedom are not mutually exclusive concepts but you have to pay attention and work for it. In the end of the day the most important thing to remember is that freedom isn't free.

"Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann

Working...