Sure, spying without the cooperation of Google may have gotten a bit more expensive, but that is the best-case scenario.
Smart computer scientists do not think that. In fact they thought it would take very long and may well be infeasible decades ago. There are just a lot of stupid CS types around.
It has been known for decades that completely new theories will be needed. Anybody that has missed that has not bothered to find out what the state-of-the art is.
We have some of the fairest elections in the world. The complaints I see on slashdot are that people dont care enough, or dont care about the things that slashdotters care about. Thats not the same thing as living in Russia, for example.
Seriously, this whole "it doesnt matter because our democracy is broken" meme is more harmful to our democracy than anything else. Want our system to suck less? Stop encouraging apathy!
A double bluff with names is stupid. There are literally an unlimited number of names he could have chosen, and no matter what the one name GUARANTEED to get scrutiny is the one he gives.
And a citizens duty in a democracy is to-- in most circumstances-- obey the laws passed by its people.
Sometimes those laws are particularly egregious, and in those RARE circumstances civil disobedience may be justified. But that bar needs to be VERY high, otherwise it just degenerates into "I really think IP laws suck, so Im torrenting everything and calling it civil disobedience." Thats not a noble cause, its undermining democracy and society.
I dont really see how you could classify export restrictions as being serious enough to qualify.
Some smaller publishers may start to care, but the larger ones want at least one order of magnitude more. But it shows that you can get the finding even for an advanced project without a publisher. Good. This is what the Internet is for: Connecting people globally and cutting out the intermediaries that make out expensive.
You can sue and fire off nastygrams all day long. Doesnt mean the law is on your (or Barbara Streisand's) side.
The ruling (http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/slapp-ruling.pdf) basically threw the case out. Regardless, the issue here was whether this was an invasion of the privacy of one's home, which is a separate issue than being photographed in public.
Owner of an object in a photo has zero copyright claims, regardless of how many nastygrams they fire off or how many lawyers they threaten to sic on you. The creator of the photograph-- the creative work-- is the one who owns the copyright.
You also generally do not have to get permission to photograph things visible in public, though people like to fight over that as well.
In large parts of Europe we live with that and we like it.
I have noticed a fairly large divide between how europeans THINK america should be and how it is. Thats not accidental; its not like we're desperately yearning to be Europe no matter what Piers Morgan may think. There are some big cultural differences, and some big differences in the genesis of the countries involved.
We tend to fall very hard on the side of "individual rights"-- that is, freedom to DO things-- while it seems that Europe falls very hard on the "freedom FROM things" side of the coin. Personally, I find the whole approach of legislating away things I dont like as a nasty slippery slope that ends in authoritarianism. Id rather err far more on the "too permissive" side than to wake up one day and realize we're revisiting Europe in the 40s.
Technologically, it's a terrible idea. The client software and the end user no longer have any ability to inspect the actual certificates used for an HTTPS connection. From the client's perspective, all HTTPS connections are really with the MITM device and use the same cert chain.
That is completely incorrect.
The MITM mechanism is the company creating an internal CA (which they and ONLY they control), and installing it as trusted on your workstation. SSL certs are still validated, its just that your employer can generate legitimately* signed certificates for any website on demand.
So, no revoking CAs that are compromised.
Again, thats not really true. A proper SSL proxy is gonna reject a bad SSL connection if the cert was revoked, or the timestamp is wrong, or the CA isnt trusted.
No using non-default root CAs
Its your employers machine; id say he has the greater right to decide which SSL certs are and are not trusted. If you need to connect to the DoD, your employer almost certainly knows about it, and if he doesnt you should probably let him know.
90% of your objections are basically that a dedicated IT team is writing the security policy (what crypto algos to use, what CAs to trust, etc) rather than you getting a say in it. Guess what: thats not your job, and the employer has every right to enforce the security policy of his choosing. It may even be a legal requirement for him to do so.
Depends who you are.
If you have no idea what the threat model is, what the legal requirements are, or what the business cases are for the practice, and have generally little IT background-- you will think it is evil (unless you actually read that computer use policy).
If you deal with IT security regularly and / or have dealt with the threats, legal burdens, etc-- youll generally understand that not only does everyone do it, but its pretty important to do.
But hey, maybe some people like viruses on their network being able to communicate to their C&C server over SSL unhindered. Cant have the company interfering, right?
I'm not sure "my system, my rules" would go very far in court.
I think you would be surprised, and (IANAL but) I suspect misusing that info and / or capturing it for the purposes of fraud would be a whole different discussion.
Theres not much difference between this and bugging your own house or having an audio recorder in your own car. Your property, your rules.
Why are you assuming that the employees are dishonest and stealing company time and access? My company specifically allows personal use of their network (within certain limitations), so nobody here is being dishonest.
These systems are not for the 99% of honest users. Nor are access controls, privilege restrictions, admin-off-by-default, etc.
These systems are for A) outside intrusions (detection
It is generally legal, and according to wikipedia it is legal in MOST countries when notice is given. Generally, notice IS given in the Acceptable Use Policy, but even when it is not it seems like it would be a tough thing to argue that you have any special privacy rights in someone else's network. Claiming that you do would make any kind of IDS