There was a declaration of independence for the Internet some 10 or 15 years ago. Anyone remember it and got a link?
Not admitting that the sky is blue and not admitting that UFOs kidnapped Elvis are not the same kind of things, even though they both have to do with admitting something.
Let's just end it here, it's getting pathetic.
I think this discussion is done. You don't want to admit that people can be intelligent even if they're not in the same way that you are, and there's really no point continuing.
Yes, I can come up with a thousand free market answers. And yes, that pretty much answers your question.
Would you buy a vehicle from any company whatsoever if you knew that parts were difficult to acquire? A manufacturer can play a game with parts availability only if they don't plan to stay in business.
Maybe we should go back to renting our phones from ATT as well.
This has serious ramifications on congressional oversight of intelligence orgs. At stake is the existence of any elected oversight of spooks.
This. So few people understand this. This is a major battle in the war the intelligence agencies wage to become independent from the electorate and to avoid any meaningful oversight. We laugh when conspiracy theorists rant about the NWO, but we are watching on as a shadow government gets formed right in front of our eyes.
Believe it or not, there are people with PhDs that are absolutely idiotic;
There are also three-headed monkeys. That doesn't mean that every monkey is one of them. Anyway, you are distracting from the original point which was that the assumption that absolutely everyone except yourself is an idiot is arrogant, foolish, ignorant and almost certainly untrue.
You make the same kind of stupid mistakes in other peoples field of expertise as they make in yours. If you conclude from one that they are morons, you by necessity have to conclude from the reciprocal that you are, too.
So... There are several people in possession of a information that has a value and that has been publicly identified as valuable.
No problem. Governments only hire people immune to corruption.
There's an important difference. Yes, this information can be obtained by a determined adversary with considerable resources. Making it public, however, would mean every blabbering fool in a cave with an Internet connection has it.
That is quite a difference. We're all constantly going on about how we realize that there's no 100% security - this is just such a case. Making critical information hard to obtain is precisely what security is all about.
I didn't bother wasting my money on such a thing, so no, I don't have a piece of paper. What a shame.
Worst excuse ever. It's not the paper, it's the process, the learning experience, and what you pick up towards it. The paper is just the confirmation that you did.
Remaining willfully ignorant on a few simple facts and then proceeding to do stupid shit over and over is a good sign that someone is unintelligent. Deal with it.
Your argument is debunked by the last thing I wrote, so I won't repeat it. The difference between theoretical known facts and practical application of knowledge appears to elude you.
omg, what a bullshit argument. Yeah, I'm sure going through university and getting a Ph.D. means little, which is why you have ten of them, right?
Get your head out of your ass. Tech is not the only discipline that requires skill and intelligence, and a lot of those "idiots" can run circles around you in anything except tech. Maybe instead of insulting them, you could try actually *gasp* talking to them for a change?
Basically, the fact that they do stupid shit like this is a very, very good indicator that they're not intelligent.
It is not.
You confuse intelligence with domain knowledge. That someone knows little about a specific subfield of a specific domain (IT security in the tech field) doesn't say anything at all about his intelligence. To pick up the old prejudice again: By the same record, the typical geek is an idiot because he stumbled around social situations, and people who know how to handle that are shaking their heads in disbelief how someone can be so stupid.
Which is more moronic?
Somehow, we seem to think that for your house and your car - probably the two most expensive pieces of property you own - physical keys are good enough. But for your Twitter account, the danger that someone could steal them is insurmountable?
Or, rather than playing the 'jealousy card', maybe it's because they're legitimately stupid?
Unless you have seriously investigated the possibility that they aren't stupid, You don't have a leg to stand on. Some of these "idiots" have degrees, Ph.D.s and other indicators that lack of IQ is not among their problems.
but what lesson are we to learn from someone who emails lists of passwords to herself?
That real-world security is very disconnected from the clean and nice scenarios in your books and head, because real users think differently than geeks and do different things for different reasons. Some of them we gloat over and call them Lusers and other deragatory terms, but that's mostly to cover up our own insecurity because most of the Lusers out there have had ten times as many and twice as beautiful women and don't live in their mothers basements anymore.
Yes, I know that's also untrue. The point is that different people have different skills and while many of the non-techie people do stuff that we techies consider stupid, they could laugh just as much about us in other areas of expertise. Maybe not women, maybe for them it's sports or marketing or making friends.
So stop gloating and calling people stupid and look at what they can, in fact, teach you. In this case, there's quite a bit to be learned, not the least of which is that passwords are a moronic concept and need to die.
That wouldn't be true in Finland. I doubt it would be true in any EU country.
Yes, of course "within applicable law" could be added to that, but then in the words of Richard Hammond, they don't put up signs saying "no murdering" on every street corner, do they?
In my country, for example, monitoring of employees is allowed if and only if the employees (via their elected representatives, I'm not talking politicians but intra-company employee councils) agree to it. I've been on such a council, and we did agree to some requests and rejected others.
. The "Root CA" referred to by the original post is the public key of the
Which is why I explicitly wrote "the private key part" as being a potential danger. You do realize that if there's a public key, there's also a private key, yes?
Of course a public key is not a danger, that's why it's called a public key in the first place.
Some of these days I feel old. There used to be a time on
No, it isn't. You utterly fail to understand whats going on here or how SSL and PKI in general works.
You wanted to misread me and succeeded. I'm not speaking about the pupils notebooks. I was clearly talking about the security of the private key part, wherever it is kept. I explicitly added that word to my response, specifically so people wouldn't misunderstand it in the precise way that you did.