Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:New York (Score 1) 238

“Legislators say, `Look, New York is a center of world commerce. Businesses have to be here. It doesn’t matter how high we tax them.’ I hear that a lot. But when you apply that same logic to upstate, the impact is devastating.”

and that's why the Startup-NY is a failure. despite tax incentives employees have to live somewhere and they would be taxed disproportionately vs. the company then when the incentives expire the company gets slapped. That's not a startup friendly environment, not by a long shot.

Comment: Re:More of the same (Score 2) 116

by Virtucon (#49447713) Attached to: 'Let's Encrypt' Project Strives To Make Encryption Simple

Maybe I don't understand what your trying to say but there is no point at all in encrypting without trust. If your saying you would rather use a local CA for internal business or family use this is an excellent idea.

Trust is at an arms length, so locally administered CAs make sense for these purposes. Trust works when all parties are trustworthy and it breaks down when you trust that deadbeat cousin Lin who still owes you money for that pizza from 5 years ago. At that point you should be able to prune cousin Lin from your XMAS card list. You can't however because then you're immediate family won't allow it. Apple not removing the Chinese CA for example.

This isn't ever going to happen unless trust anchors are deterministically derivable from DNS names implying little to no choice in your selection of a trust anchor.

Names is all that you can use because it is all people are willing to accept. Nobody is willing to go to and manually enter or have to confirm use of the proper registry nor does relying on some coordinating structure do anything other than recreate the same problems in a different form.

Well DNS is one mechanism but there can be others. I do think that the hierarchy of CA trust needs to be thrown out and it needs to give local control to who you trust and why. that means more responsibility from users but at least you can have some level of control.

Comment: bad but creating false evidence trails is worse (Score 5, Insightful) 46

by Virtucon (#49446915) Attached to: The DEA Disinformation Campaign To Hide Surveillance Techniques

I agree that the surveillance issue is bad but it's much worse when the DEA creates false evidence trails to hide the surveillance links to their own programs and that of the NSA. This puts the basic principles of justice out the window when you have DEA agents lying on the witness stand about how they obtained their information. A judge could ostensibly throw out convictions or exclude evidence based on those facts, sanctioning prosecutors for knowingly allowing this to happen at trial. It's fucking stupid to expose the nation to this kind of risk.

Comment: Re:More of the same (Score 2) 116

by Virtucon (#49446807) Attached to: 'Let's Encrypt' Project Strives To Make Encryption Simple

I agree with the trust issue on certs however encrypting doesn't mean that I have to use a trust based model if it's for personal uses or for close proximity use, such as within a family or business environment. The issues are much larger in terms of protecting data whether it's stored or in transit across insecure networks. As a start I'd like to see the CA system revamped or replaced with multiple trust authorities, not just one chain and have meaningful teeth to eliminate trust associations with authorities who violate trust which seems to be more rampant and obvious as of late.

Comment: i've heard this for years, move along (Score 1) 92

Sponsors pay for content either in production or distribution and that's how they get their brand recognition to their targeted audience. It's been that way for decades and when it comes to kids shows, most of them are toy manufacturers or clothing or related products that get the kids to desire the things that are advertised. with targeted marketing on platforms like IOS or Android now content sponsors can drill in even further with ads that are identifying a specific child. "Hey Billy, buy this.."
is it unfair? In some ways yes and in others it's not because there's no such thing as free content.

In Kids programming that's what PBS did for kids with Sesame Street etc.

If you want to fix this, fix how content production and distribution are funded but you're never going to outlaw Barbie.

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson