Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Don't blame every individual (Score 1) 126

Agreed, especially the part about "evident that such action is now considered normal." Isolated incidents aren't enough. It's the pattern of behavior throughout the company, especially one's own superiors, that matter.

I would add some more limitations:
1. Don't quit because of the actions of another division you have no contact with.
2. Instead of quitting, do the right thing until they fire you. Ex: As an NSA employee, instead of using exploits to install trojans, write-up an explanation of the exploit and ask your boss to submit it to CERT. Notify your boss's boss of what is happening. Report your orders to the ethics committee. As an police officer, instead of testifying that you stopped the person for a tail light out, testify that the FBI called you and told you to pull the car over and wouldn't say why. That forces things into the open. Only then would the courts get a chance to address it.

Years ago, the NSA used to help secure U.S. computer systems. They developed encryption, and fixed known security holes. They made SELinux. If the NSA offered to hire me to go to companes and help secure their software, I would take that job, regardless of what other divisions of the NSA do. That would be a chance to not only do the right thing, but to influence from within. Sometimes it is a stronger statement to stay and do the right thing, than to leave.

A personal example from my experience: I work for a company with about 50,000 employees. Even as I type this it sounds crazy huge to me. The company is actually a really good, moral company, in my opinion. My division, which probably has a few thousand employees, makes devices that detect cancer, bloodborne diseases, etc. The idea is to help hospitals detect things faster, and prescribe the proper antibiotics faster. It's a good company.

So last year I heard that a court ruled my employer was using anti-competitive practices to muscle into the market for syringes or something like that. It was a civil suit brought by a competitor. It was a product that is not made by my division so I don't even know who or where. So should I leave in protest? Should the janitors leave? Or the CEO's receptionist? Or the guy who comes out and fixes the piece of equipment that might save someone's life? Maybe it should just be the people in that other division. I honestly don't know. When the company sent out the email, I really wanted to know what exactly the company had done and who did it. I was angry. I wondered if they would address it at the company quarterly meetings. But I don't even know if it happened 10 years ago or 10 weeks ago. I don't know what country it even happened in. With a company with divisions in 10+ countries, and 50,000 employees, it might as well have been some other company that did it. I submit that quitting would have been silly.

Comment Re:Don't blame every individual (Score 1) 126

Wow, that's a nice hack job of a quote you did.

Yeah, I was more highlighting the cases where you were lumping everyone in the FBI together, rather than making an actual quote. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I'm not advocating it, I'm not condoning it, but I sure as fuck understand it.

Fine, it sure sounded like you were condoning it through your justifications. If that is the case, I withdraw my criticism. So given that statement, it makes me re-evaluate your intentions in the original post:

But you know what, it really boils down to "if these agencies are going to spy on us, often in violation of the law and our rights ... and then use parallel construction to commit perjury, why should we care?"

I now see that you put that in quotes, as though the "us" was the voice of the hackers. I didn't understand that before. Fine. But hold on just a moment:

It's not like you can only target the people who do this stuff, and it's not like they give a shit.

So here you point out that the hackers couldn't target only the "bad ones" at the FBI. So you were saying that maybe the hack was the wrong thing to do, but if they are gonna hack, they might as well target the innocent people too. Am I misreading this? Because it sure sounds like justification for hurting innocent people.

Then later you say:

Especially when they show so little regard for us.

Here you are using your own voice. That "us" wasn't the hackers. This is your personal justification.

So, are they entitled to expect anything different?

Here you posit that the FBI is deserving of this. That's justification too.

Even in reply to my post, you reiterated your dislike of parallel reconstruction. But the hackers posted this list with the hashtag #freepalestine, not #parallelreconstruction. So you aren't understanding the hackers at all. You are applying your own motivations to their actions. Search your feelings my friend, deep down it sounds like you are glad this happened. You even bothered to reply to an AC who was just trying to say "Dammit hackers, this isn't fair! You hurt innocent people!" Almost any "understanding" at that point is justification for the hack.

(Meta: I bothered to reply here because you replied to something I was saying in another thread - a good well-worded clarification about Sprint and network neutrality. So I take you to be a reasonable person worth engaging in discussion of. You worded your reply without the usual Slashdot "Well screw you you know nothing about hacking..." which I really appreciate in the current climate around here.)

Comment Don't blame every individual (Score 1) 126

these people ... show so little regard for us.... when these agencies use Sting Rays, or commit perjury...not only can we not trust you bastards... So, are they entitled

Most of the people on that list aren't doing any of the the hings you complained about. You just lumped every individual law enforcement officer, undercover agent, secretary, and janitor who work for the FBI under one umbrella. This hack hurts the individuals more than the agency as a whole. It won't stop any of the things you listed. I hope my employer doesn't do something you don't like, because then me and 30,000 other innocent people who work for this company suddenly get on your shit list, and you think it is okay to release our personal data.

Comment Why is it called differential pricing? (Score 3, Insightful) 131

voted against differential pricing, ruling with immediate effect that all data prices must be equal, and that companies cannot offer cheaper rates than others for certain content

The decision makes sense, but the reasoning and naming is nonsensical. It is fine for data prices to be different, and it is fine for companies to offer cheaper rates than others. The issue is that they cannot offer a "partial" internet. They must offer the entire internet, or none at all. This would make more sense to be called "differential content."

Any vision into the naming here? It seems like it sends the wrong message. Or maybe this is a translation problem?

Comment Re:Support long-running discussions (Score 1) 1832

What if users could edit the story summary, like how StackOverflow works with answers? People post complaints about summaries all the time. Perhaps instead, there should be a system where moderators or some other class of people can edit summaries, and another can approve edits. Then Slashdot becomes the best source for story summaries.

Comment Re:should be interesting (Score 1) 327

Oh no, clickbait has come to comments, not just headlines? lol

"Do you know what [your spouse | your children | Donald Trump | Julian Assange's mistress] is doing now? Go check it out!"
Worse-yet, is someone will start moderating these kinds of posts as +1 Insightful even though they make absolutely no point at all.

Comment Re:Android != Play Store (Score 1) 166

Running an Android phone today, without relying on the Google stuff, is really hard. No store sells such a phone (except those cheap phones that replace it with the Amazon equivalents). You usually have to root the phone, and the manufacturers won't honor the warranty. You risk some hardware not working, not getting updates, etc.

Face it: The hand held phone industry is 100% vendor lock-in. They aren't like PCs where you still have Linux if you want to control your machine. Heck, even Windows and OS X don't try to lock you down the way Android, iOS, and Windows Mobile (or whatever it is called now) do.

Comment Re: Militant Slashdot (Score 1) 293

Yeah, government oppression NEVER happens [rolls eyes].

Tell you what. Go to ANY local store and buy a Blu-Ray player. Pop in a BBC disc (say, a recent Doctor Who), and try to skip the previews. Just try it. Guess what? The government FORCES companies to make DVD players to not allow certain bits to be skipped. Yeah, that is for the good of you and I, sure. [rolls eyes].

Now, have you EVER heard of this group called the "NSA?" They actually got the metadata from most (if not all) cell phone calls for a while (and maybe they still are). Yup, no warrant, like the 4th Amendment says they have to get. Get this... the government went after an honest person who told the American citizens how their own government was breaking the law. They are trying to accuse Snowden of treason. Treason is helping the enemy. I guess the government considers the common people to be the enemy. [rolls eyes]

Oh, our government has actually targeted journalists with surveillance, and even sent the IRS after people and groups based on their political stance. Yeah, that is OK, right? [rolls eyes]

If you trust the government, then you have not been paying attention. Stop being ignorant -- you have only yourself to blame.

Comment Re:Guns save lives (Score 1) 293

I have heard two better hypothesis. Maybe one or the other, or both, are true.

1) Lead in the environment. No more lead in gas and paint. Lead, if I recall correctly, has been shown to increase violent behavior.

2) Abortion becoming legal. With more abortion, you have less criminals.

Note that NEITHER of these are my theories, and I don't have any personal opinions on either one. I am just parroting what I have heard elsewhere.

Comment Re:should be interesting (Score 2) 327

It's BS. I did as the AC suggested, and Googled it. It looks like one of the women's best friend's mother's uncle's former roommate said something about Cuba one time. Or something silly like that.

What has most engaged the conspiracy theorists and Assange's more excitable defenders, however, are a few key incidents in Miss A career, in particular that she is said to have worked in the Swedish embassy in the US, and wrote her university thesis in 2007 on a vision of Cuba after the death of Castro.

This has led to widespread allegations that the woman is a CIA agent, planted as a honeytrap to bring down Assange. One blogger notes: "[Assange] just happens to meet a Swedish woman who just happens to have been publishing her work in a well-funded anti-Castro group that just happens to have links with a group led by a man at least one journalist describes as an agent of the CIA: the violent secret arm of America's foreign policy.

There are various more sensational articles, but none of those provide any evidence. This was the only article that seemed to explain the connection clearly.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.