Thank you for this.
I really appreciate that you say so.
Thank you for this.
I really appreciate that you say so.
It's ok to protect ordinary people from organised crime, right? I've been writing letters to senators to try and let them know why it was such a bad idea all week. Why is it all the really fucked bills have to be 'rushed through'. I reckon the game for politicians is how well they can deceive the population, en masse to pass these really nasty laws whilst the media serves to keep everyone in the dark. They must be high fiving each other now.
I analysed the bill and whilst I won't include the letters I wrote to the senate, these are the sections of part one I thought needed to be amended to protect the population from fraud and slashdotters will probably get this immediately.
Criticisms of specific sections in Part one:
187AA.3A,3B remove because it introduces the possibility that any e-commerce business that is not a telecommunications provider can be forced to retain data and bare the cost of limiting their business throughput and capacity for expansion. For business this represents a rising linear cost that increases with additional customers.
187B.2 Needs definition of who a CAC (Communications Access Controller) role answers to, which department, and limits to retention demands
187B.2A change 'may' to 'must'
187B.3.c Remove. Additional requirements from the CAC impose incremental infrastructure and capacity restraints on business coupled with forcing them into I.P cost and approval cycles every time infrastructure upgrades are required as a result of demands from the CAC. The business is forced to write for approval for mandatory upgrades to meet retention requirements demanded by the CAC.
187BA.a Specify an minimum standard for encryption of data. Governmental should mandate minimum encryption standards revised regularly to protect consumers from fraud, organised crime, identity theft, harassment and so on. The same standard should control access to the data from all parties.
187BA.c add allow encrypted access to the data by the entity or person that generated it.
187E.2.b,c service providers must never be exempt from section 187BA when storing entity or personally generated data 187F.2.a add ensure adherence to encryption standards in 187BA; and
187F.2.b add: whilst still complying with 187BA
187F.2.f remove for the same reason as 187B.3.c
187G.1 Law enforcement uses a secured access standard under 187BA.a to access the data
187G.2.d change 'may' to 'must'
187G 4,5 Define a criteria for the ACMA's collection requirements
187K.1.d add: not approve an exemption from 187BA
187KA.4 define the ACMA's relation to policing here
187KA.4.f add: input from the PC and T.O
187KA.5 remove: ACMA considerations have nothing to do with policing for terrorists
187LA Should provide protection from abuse from government employees
187M add: Section 187BA(a)(b),
To clue you all in Section 187AA is the meat of the 80 page bill that defines what is captured. Section 187BA(a)(b) define, weakly, how the population will be protected from fraud. Whilst the single word change of 187B.2A is the critical change required to protect people from harrasement. 187G.2.d give ISPs an out for complying with 187BA which further weakens the publics protection.
I feel sorry for my country and it's people. I work in IT, I understand how people will be defrauded because I've seen it and now I think it is inevitable that these cases will be more common. Our constitution says Australians are guaranteed 'responsible government' however I see this bill as a very dangerous instrument that will be abused because it simply doesn't have any protections for Australians - how is that responsible government.
if the Five Eyes slurp it all up anyway? They already have access to these data, why bother making ISPs keep it too?
As a cache. If an analyst decides to pay attention to you the Xkeyscore can query the cache on the ISP and then slurp any future data. It's must be a spooks wet dream - get the target to pay for their own surveillance.
This law is just formalising and making it clearly mandatory. The meta data has been available and used for decades.
As someone who has read the Bill and the requirements under Section 187AA and as someone who is familiar with the billing systems that ISP use I can tell you that this is not true. The items under the section also record the duration and other parts of the communications that weren't previously recorded.
ISP's billing systems were only concerned if your account was financial, not the specifics of what the account was doing.
and I wrote to the politicians as well, bad day for Australia.
"Just as likely" huh. Seems legit.
as a "a genetically engineered Kaiju that eats Plutonium and shits out crude oil" - for sure
Who knows our civilisation may be at its peak right now and we will never reach these technological heights again. For all we know our selfishness will drive humanity back to nomads with some crazy old man poking a stick in a fire saying 'We used to have great machines that could fly'. Not what I want, but just as likely.
Could someone fill me in on the economics of nuclear power generation? I'd like to know what the usual payback period for a plant is, and how much it costs to operate a plant over that period.
Absolutely. Here is a link to the peer reviewed science that details net energy return after factoring input costs.
Have a great day!
Comparing your mild annoyance at the thought that a company that you don't have to do business with could sell your data to a third party to slavery is incredibly offensive.
People that hide behind the freedom of anonymous speech I fight for to criticize me, offend me. Go an write a letter to your duly elected representative you are wasting your time here.
Did anyone using this service expect anything less? The data created by the company is another product that can be consumed.
I used to love being a free person, now I'm a data product to be bought and sold, much like a slave.
What benchmark made you conclude that HFS+ is faster than NTFS when using big block sizes ?
None, NTFS is a crap filesystem. I was just pointing out the comparison there is wasteful vs sluggish.
Does anybody still use reiserfs and what makes it "enterprise grade" ?
It's the fastest filesystem I've tested vs ext(s), xfs, and a few others. I had to do a lot of throughput testing on different filesystems so I wrote a battery of tests that helped me figure it out years ago.
Windozes server 2012 uses some of the principles from reiserfs, I don't know if that counts and I can't speak to who users reiserfs commercially but I use it whenever I need something fast and reliable.
The guy may be a killer but he knows how to write a filesystem and I doubt the US military has given up on their investment in it.
Mac OS X still depends on old mac system 6/7 filesystem functionality like resource forks, these are not that easy to "retrofit" in ufs/zfs.
Interesting - I didn't know that - but still sucks for mac users.
A lot of the IO schedulers are implemented mainly to have some IO fairness because mechanical hard drives are very easy to saturate.
and also to make it look like all the processes running behave smoothly - if you have a dedicated application though your still s.o.o.l on a mac
These aren't that useful anymore when you can push 500.000 IOPS to a set of SSD's. And don't diss the FreeBSD storage subsystem: ufs allows for consistent backups without having to use volume management and creating a snapshot beforehand (LVM2+ext4).
Now way would I dis FreeBSD - I'm might be a linux guy but I still think BSD is a solid offering - and good on them for having apple use their work - they deserve more credit. Though ext4 suffers its own issues if you need to have big directory structures.
I'll stick with my guns here though, any limitations on linux disk performance is a function of how well the controller drivers implement the hardware functionality. Configurable I/O, CPU scheduling, software and hardware raid coupled with filesystem choice make Linux reign supreme in terms of achievable I/O performance.
Nah, I neglected to consider the on board controller quality of laptops - Apple have usually been pretty good in that regard - filesystems though - blech. It might be interesting to do a comparison with linux on a T series lenovo - which is a similar build quality an a mac but in reality mine was an observation about filesystem performance over hardware.
Even more interesting would be a comparison of similar macs with one hosting linux, but even that would just be limited by how well linux supports the apple controller under linux.
I have done extensive testing of filesystem throughput though, however those have been on higher end kit than laptops.
"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." -- Alexander Graham Bell