Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Supreme Court did *not* say corps are people .. (Score 1) 1330

I know this is a late comment, but I like your comment because it reminds us of the way power is delegated. The people delegate power to the states. The states delegate power to the corporations. What our culture seems to have forgotten is the the people are still on top.

Now if we can only remember what happened that brought us here.

Comment Re:NSA aint helping either (Score 1) 177

I think you are pretty close, but I think that the real problem for the NSA is the possibility of real competition to provide internet access. Imagine how tough the job will be if the NSA had to get cooperation from hundreds of ISPs like they have in Japan. The duopoly here is very convenient for the NSA but a nightmare for the rest of us.

Had we declared the owners of the pipes to be common carriers and imposed open access rules upon them, we'd have something like what Japan has: fast internet access with hundreds of ISPs vying for my money. Instead, we have cable and telcos who operate on one principle: make sure that the CEO can have a few vacation homes sprawled across the world, send his kids to private schools until they are married and allow him and his extended family to live in gated communities. The members of the board of directors get similar benefits, but to a lesser extent.

Oh, one more thing. The corporations participating in the duopoly need to siphon enough money from the economy to capture the agencies that regulate them, except for the NSA, which in theory, can't be bought. Snowden proved that, but not in the way the NSA had in mind.

In sum, the duopoly will slow the net down, but it will also provide a few powerful leverage points for the government while concentrating revenue into a few companies willing to cooperate. Yeah, that sums it up.

Comment Re:Pointless Worrying (Score 1) 472

A farm of computers, eh? How big is it? Here's an article from Schneier that discusses the physical limitations of computation relative to brute force attacks for private keys:

To put it simply, brute force attacks are about trying every possible combination in a counter. Just to run a counter through 256 bits, You're going to need all the power of the sun for 32 years or more, or a supernova. Take your pick. That doesn't include power for any other useful computation. And then of course, there is time. How much time do you have?

The computer scientists of the world who believe in freedom will be happy to put the kibosh on on any code that permits side-attacks on encryption software. That is where the weakness is more likely to be, not the encryption algorithms.

Now I could be completely wrong about this, but based on the best available information I have, I don't think anyone is capable of brute force attacks against strong encryption except for poorly implemented crypto or really weak passwords.

Comment Re:Scroogled, ha ha (Score 1) 286

Yeah, I guess you're right. Your examples seem worse than forgetting to update the SSL certificates for Azure, or permitting a complete failure of the London Stock Exchange for 8 hours the day after the Fed announces the bailout of AIG. For an interesting analysis of Microsoft network security that was presented at DEFCON 18, go here:

If after watching that, you still feel that Google is doing such a poor job with reliability and security, good luck with Microsoft.

Slashdot Top Deals

Just about every computer on the market today runs Unix, except the Mac (and nobody cares about it). -- Bill Joy 6/21/85