Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Google+ failed becuase it's GOOGLE (Score 5, Insightful) 359

It's not about who's pure. I can't control information once third parties have it. Pure today, evil tomorrow, who knows. I don't like sharing anything with Dropbox, Apple or Facebook either, and I try to avoid it.

It's just that I already use Google for searching the web, for maps, and for translation. And I use Youtube. I also store my contacts and keep a few bookmarks with Google because I use Android, but I'm close to stopping that practice.

Because of Google's search they collect too much information about me already, and I'm wary of them regardless of what they do or do not do. (Well, unless they encrypted everything client side with free software, utterly blinding themselves and their clients to everything I do)

I need to use Google a lot less, and I'm always on the lookout for ways to:

1) Use it less
2) Deny it access to information about me
3) Feed it false information about me
4) Encourage others to do all of the above

Comment Google+ failed becuase it's GOOGLE (Score 5, Insightful) 359

They already have too much of my online attention. Sharing anything except my searches with them is a non-starter. It doesn't matter how well implemented the service is. Because it's Google, there's just absolutely no way I'm using it.

I won't even look at files people try to share with me through Google. I just say, "Sorry, I don't use Google drive!" I feel so strongly about it I don't even care if it loses me business or friends.

Comment Re:Great for free software (Score 1) 212

I doubt it's actually possible to enforce encryption backdoors beyond a few major vendors. The result would be similar to exiting attempts to prohibit reverse engineering. It's impossible to outlaw debuggers, disassemblers, logic analyzers, and similar tools. It's like outlawing radios that can tune in to any station. It's been done, but it's not all that effective.

Even if all software from major vendors like Microsoft, Apple, and Google implemented protocols with backdoors, correct implementations of the underlying algorithms are necessary for those to function.

We've seen forced decryption laws in the UK. Forward secrecy basically defeats RIPA, because you can't force someone to decrypt something they never had the key for in the first place.

China has attempted to regulate cryptography, essentially requiring a license to develop, buy, sell, or research encryption. They have mandatory key escrow too. It's useless. Everyone uses encryption all the time. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

Comment Re:Schneier's opinion isn't what it once was (Score 2) 114

That's true, but there was no book at the library that listed which articles in the newspaper we decided to read and which ones we decided to skip. The post office didn't make copies of all our letters and the phone company didn't record all our calls. When we used a map to find directions, none of this information used to be recorded. When we had our photographs developed, we could be quite sure the photo lab wasn't making copies of all of them.

Records of our financial transactions were much more limited because most of them were cash. Now we use payment cards for almost everything.

Comment You don't bite the hand that feeds you (Score 4, Insightful) 305

Who purchases the services of economists? Who consumes their work product?

A lot of economists are paid by central banks one way or another:

One useful tactic for managing the economy is manipulating public opinion. Especially the opinion of those members of the public who manage huge quantities of other people's money. The job of the economist then is not necessarily to discover the true state of the economy, but to convince others that is it in a certain state in order to influence their behavior.

Slashdot Top Deals

The confusion of a staff member is measured by the length of his memos. -- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981