Comment: Re:Let this be a lesson to all (Score 1) 300
You do not need permission, facebook has a Bug Bounty program with (vaguely?) defined rules of engagement that pays money.
Comment: Re:Much worse (Score 1, Insightful) 451
I doubt it was simply a text message and more likely a chain of events that ended with the text message.
Maybe this is a case of mistaken identity but I can bet someone with that name must have been on some sort of watch list for doing questionable activities or associating with questionable people. I doubt we will ever know the full story.
Comment: Re:How exactly is that data available?! (Score 1) 196
Somewhere in TOS there is likely a clause which allows the telecos to "share" your private information with anyone willing to pay for it.
Comment: Re:Some other option (Score 2) 297
Crowdsourcing
Comment: Re:Layers (Score 1) 333
+1 for multiple layers.
If this is a serious project, you should definitely consider getting a security pro involved to conduct a proper risk assessment. This will give you a good idea of what will be required to meet security expectations throughout the entire life cycle of your system.
Physical security, Network security, Policy/Legal requirements etc will likely require to be assessed if not already done.
If this is a serious project, you should definitely consider getting a security pro involved to conduct a proper risk assessment. This will give you a good idea of what will be required to meet security expectations throughout the entire life cycle of your system.
Physical security, Network security, Policy/Legal requirements etc will likely require to be assessed if not already done.
Comment: Re:applicants (Score 1) 229
20/20 vision? Incredible shape? This is slashdot, that means none of us qualify.
TFA is not entirely accurate. If you look at the actual job posting, they say "Must be correctable to 20/20". This means you can wear glasses or have an eye surgery to meet 20/20.
Comment: Re:aldrich ames passed his polygraphs (Score 1) 238
Actual polygraph questions are Yes/No only.
Comment: Re:Polygraphs are nothing but BS. (Score 2) 238
If you read about the actual history and accuracy of polygraphs, you will find that they are not "lie detectors" at all, but merely tools of intimidation. (I could cite many, many sources. While not authoritative, the Penn & Teller show "Bullshit" has a very informative episode on the matter. And yes, the show is called "Bullshit" for a reason. Polygraphs are bullshit.) Polygraphs are used as tools for intimidation in order to interrogate. By themselves, they are worthless. They are security theater, much like the TSA. I really hate to see our country run by people who believe in (or pull) this kind of BS.
Sure polygraphs are far from perfection but is your normal job interview perfect at assessing if you are the best candidate for the job? Is a 2 hours exam best way to assess your technical skills? Or reference checks? To me its just another step in what is a subjective process anyway.
Comment: Re:WTF? (Score 3, Funny) 238
What use would the CIA have for honest staff?
You have to be honest to the organization but lie to everyone else.
Comment: Re:Somewhere in the engineering process (Score 1) 647
I am not. I remember when the Taliban hacked into the Predator drones over Afghanistan and were receiving the video down-link due to the lack of encryption
The predator was not hacked into.The stream was unencrypted which made it an easy target for passive listening.