Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Bring back firing squads, hangings and guillotine (Score 0) 1080

by HughJazz (#49259437) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century
Ways to kill people.

firing squads
water boarding (except this time drown them)
poison that leads to agonizing slow death
stakes through the anus
removal of entrails with a chainsaw.

The more gruesome the execution, the better. The problem with "clean" executions is that it makes those that self-righteously advocate execution as a form of punishment feel "civilized". There is nothing civilized about executions. its just another form of barbarism, murder and sadism but one simply sanctioned by the state. Lets stop pretending to be civilized and show ourselves as brutes that we are by making executions a bloodfest. Put on TV on Saturday morning for kids to watch. Their parents shouldn't mind. Many of them still claim it as 'justice" after all.

If humanity manages to survive our technology, there is little doubt future generations will see our generation as still with one foot in the door of savagery for having allowing capital punishment

Comment: Those oppesed to homeopathy are close minded (Score 0) 447

by HughJazz (#49246927) Attached to: Homeopathy Turns Out To Be Useless For Treating Medical Conditions
I've even been yelled at several times for referencing homeopathic "cures" as quackery. Apparently I'm "closed minded" for expecting evidence that they work. In short, I don't think an infinite number of studies that indicate that homeopathy is essentially snake oil will put dent in the industry. The homeopathy industry isn't much different than the religion industry. Some people want to believe what they want to believe.

Comment: Re:NOT TO BE TRUSTED (Score 0) 130

by HughJazz (#49184689) Attached to: Schneier: Either Everyone Is Cyber-secure Or No One Is
Human rights violations doesn't only apply to "executions and kidnapping of babies". Ultimately human rights is about rights. Do we have a right not to be spied on by our own government? According to the US Constitution the unambiguous answer is yes. It's unfortunate that some that claim to stand behind that Constitution.. that claim to stand for freedom.. .that claim to stand for human rights... grossly violate the right to privacy... thus should be shamed as HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSER Watch how vast politicians, who wish to be re-elected, start respecting people's right to privacy if enough constipates and NGOS start using the word HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE to describe mass surveillance. If we pansy around with our words..they'll just keep doing what they are doing.

Comment: Re:NOT TO BE TRUSTED (Score 0) 130

by HughJazz (#49184555) Attached to: Schneier: Either Everyone Is Cyber-secure Or No One Is
With a theoretically absolute security and privacy (in terms of computing) we can certainly still trust our data to others. We could still provide personal information about ourselves to others. The point is it should all be based on voluntary interaction not others using backdoors to get to our personal data without our permission.

I'm not implying that everyone will abide by principles of security I describe. Companies will still produce close source software and hardware. Ignore security principles I'm describing. That is their right if they wish. However, their products should be labelled "NOT TO BE TRUSTED" because ultimately we have no way of knowing if they've put in backdoors. Transparency in product design is what creates security. This is why government now demand MS open up its source code. This is why the NSA doesn't run any binaries or firmware on its servers where it hasn't first looked at the source code. The NSA has security far better than our own precisely because its sticking to principles that we are not.

Comment: Re:NOT TO BE TRUSTED (Score 0) 130

by HughJazz (#49184373) Attached to: Schneier: Either Everyone Is Cyber-secure Or No One Is
"Seriously? You're suggesting everyone trusts self-signed certificates as if they came from a CA that trades on their reputation for signing and delivering authentic security services?" You've misunderstood what I'm implying. Of course self-signed certificates are worthless by themselves but the current system of using centralized CAs is flawed because CA servers are being compromised. Security validation should be offloaded to P2P. This is not some fantastically unproven idea. Bitcoin blockchain functions off P2P security. With the right tweaking of SSL, CA's could be made redundant. Any system that depends on a centralized server... that can be compromised by an NSL... is inherently insecure architecture. NOT TO BE TRUSTED. With P2P and server side zero knowledge protocols NSL's largely become worthless pieces of paper.

Comment: Re:NOT TO BE TRUSTED (Score 0) 130

by HughJazz (#49184327) Attached to: Schneier: Either Everyone Is Cyber-secure Or No One Is
Without absolute privacy we will have not have privacy. There is no in between state for security. We either have security or we don't. That's Bruce;s entire argument (and he's spot on). Of course average people people don't have the skills and resources like NSA and GCHQ but the technology for average Joe to snoop is out there too (if one is willing to hire a black hat)

Comment: Re:NOT TO BE TRUSTED (Score 1) 130

by HughJazz (#49184297) Attached to: Schneier: Either Everyone Is Cyber-secure Or No One Is
"Remind me-- how many "open-source" processors, hard drives, SSDs, and SoCs do we have out there? Who do you trust to build your chips? You gonna label Intel's fabs "not to be trusted"? And if so-- which "FOSS Fab" do you plan to use?" You are speaking in terms of pragmatic reality in present. Pragmatism is precisely why systems are insecure today. I am speaking in terms of principles to get us where we want to be.. real security.

Comment: Re:NOT TO BE TRUSTED (Score 0) 130

by HughJazz (#49184279) Attached to: Schneier: Either Everyone Is Cyber-secure Or No One Is
1. "No way to tell whether the provided source code matches the provided firmware"
Yes there is. See point about hash checking. Even firmware can be hash checked if the architecture is correct..

2. binary code will vary depending on the specific architecture, optimizations, and libraries during compilation. 2) a hash can be falsified as easily as a binary.
See point about using P2P technology to validate hash rather than central servers.

3. At least an order of magnitude less effective than open source, and we've seen that even "important" OSS like openssl can go decades without independent code review.
If apps are isolated from OS this can still be largely mitigated. (other than bugs in OS and firmware). Obviously until the day comes software is sophisticated enough to find all possible security errors zero day exploits will be a problem.

4, people will get frustrated when they lose their private key, and 5 years of family snapshots disappear.
Minor issue, Biometrics can be used to get around this problem. Furthermore if someone is too lazy to that one day they might misplace their keys they have no one but themselves to blame. Absolutely no different than users that don't bother backing up their data then complain the computer is somehow to blame.

5. Because you'd rather trust 1000 amateurs to secure all of their systems than one professional to secure his server
Absolutely yes. Your flawed assumption is that everyone is an amateur. The more eyes get to see the code, the more trustworthy it will become when experts also review it. Obviously there will be things that slip through but P2P based security is highly preferable to servers (which already know is a big fat target for intelligence agencies). Far harder to break into 100,000,000 systems without anyone noticing than just 1.

6. "Yeah, ranks right up there with executing journalists and kidnapping babies."
Mockery like that suggests you don't really see privacy as a human right. It is. And it has very real consequences to freedom when we don't have it. As for your ad hominem.. you destroy your own credibility.

Comment: NOT TO BE TRUSTED (Score 0) 130

by HughJazz (#49178827) Attached to: Schneier: Either Everyone Is Cyber-secure Or No One Is
Schneier is of course right. Unfortunately megalomaniac politicians around the world are violating the very rights their are supposed to be protecting which is why Bruce is naive is thinking this attitude will change any time soon. Thus the only path to security must come come through private sector. 1 Companies that sell software... better have all code open sourced (not same as free) or should be labelled "NOT TO BE TRUSTED". (including firmware.. Bios, NICs, HDD, GPU, riouter,s switches, etc..) Code (including scripts and updates) is then compiled locally and before first execution hash checked automatically against non-centralized database (p2p technology similar to bitcoin block chain) 3. All hardware sold with precise technical diagrams... or should be labelled "NOT TO BE TRUSTED" 4. All encryption always on client side. Virtually all major current email providers should be labelled "NOT TO BE TRUSTED" (salute to ProtonMail) 5. Get rid of centralized authorities for security (looking at you SSL) Centralized servers have big fat sign that say "NOT TO BE TRUSTED". P2P. 6. Create new network protocols (to replace www, ftp, imap, etc..) that are designed from ground up on zero knowledge principle. Websites not using it zero knowledge proof... "NOT TO BE TRUSTED" 7. Shaming lists on NGOs (applause to EFF). Any politician that votes for mass surveillance or doesn't adhere to above principles. put on NGO lists as "HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS" and NOT TO BE TRUSTED"..

Comment: Re:More moaning and groaning for nothing. (Score -1) 206

by HughJazz (#48681417) Attached to: N. Korea Blames US For Internet Outage, Compares Obama to "a Monkey"
To be fair, the majority of Republicans aren't as extreme as wackjobs like Coulter. That said, there is significant number of fringe Republicans that have much in common with North Korean communists. - Racist. Fringe conservatives hate immigration because you see their own proud slave owning ancestors didn't immigrate to America. They've been here since the invisible spaghetti monster created them along with the dinosaurs (you know, 6000 years ago). You're only a "real" American if you're white and part of their Christian master plan. Native Indians, Blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians. even non-western European whites... pffff.. all "fake" Americans. - Super "patriots" whose definition of "patriotism" amounts to demonizing ever other nation on earth. (see above for any exclusions) - North Korean communists hate religious extremists. Fringe Republicans also hate religious extremists...unless its a religion they approve. God hates fags and non-white folk after all. - Have a great leader they idolize to point of cult worship. Comrade Bush was never wrong (and never farts). - Wildly support mass government surveillance like communists. It's particularly ironic when alleged constitution loving fringe Republicans grossly violate the constitution by supporting Orwellian government surveillance. Right to privacy? You must be a terrorist. - Heavy handed use of force. Endless rhetoric for wars against this nation or that. Hey lets invade another country for non-existent nukes... while simultaneously wanting to expand already one of the largest stockpiles of thermonuclear weapons in the world. The invisible space leprechaun said is OK for Americans to have WMDs. - Support use of torture.. or as communists in North Korea like to call it "enhanced interrogation". Feeding prisoners through their anus is a "medical procedure". - Communists and fringe Republicans both claim to support democracy and their citizens , -- while simultaneously supporting policies that promote extreme inequality. etc.

Comment: Re:Not a win (Score 0) 228

by HughJazz (#48311543) Attached to: New GCHQ Chief Says Social Media Aids Terrorists
You're spot on with your suggestion that terrorism should be used as an excuse by the government to censor media (or for draconian mass surveillance) but you made a gaff by saying "Muslims" rather than "extremists" or "terrorists". This is not to deny for a moment that there are a large number of Muslim extremists (including some of the alleged allies against terrorism that shamelessly continue to have theocratic states -- that in practice end up indirectly pumping out terrorists). However, stereotypes are stereotypes. If we all lump in moderate Muslims with savages like ISIS we not unfairly judge them but alienate a potential ally against Islamic extremism. Moderate Muslims, like moderate Jews and Christians, have learned to take a more metaphoric or even philosophical interpretation of their religious works. Those that inflexibly follow stone age religious doctoratines verbatim, whether Muslim, Jews or Christians, are the real problem. Those that use force to oppress the rights of others (including any atheists that want to forcibly end religion albeit foolish) should be either mocked, imprisoned or (as a last resort) killed in defense of freedom.

Comment: Re:The Children! (Score 0) 284

by HughJazz (#48164171) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption
And If its not the children... its the catch all of terrorism. At the height of the cold war, faced with thousands of nuclear weapons, the government didn't peer into everyone snail mail. We used to condemn the communists for mass surveillance. Now the NSA and FBI are getting into game.. Someone needs to reacquaint the government with this little thing called the Constitution. Hopefully one of these days someone will organize a big march in Washington to shame the politicians and bureaucrats that have been supporting this sort of behavior.

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser