Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government (Score 1) 423

by countach (#48927801) Attached to: Justice Department: Default Encryption Has Created a 'Zone of Lawlessness'

"if the majority of the collective wanted to blah blah blah, the US government would be beyond their abilities in making these laws."

Not really, because if they were determined enough the majority could push through a constitutional amendment to make it happen.

Comment: Re:If it's accessing your X server, it's elevated (Score 1) 374

by countach (#48927671) Attached to: Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure

Oh, and if you think a dumb terminal solves it, firstly these days terminals are never dumb. Even dumb terminals (does anybody still actually buy them?) probably run something like Linux underneath.

And if you can find a truly dumb terminal and solve all those problems, then you can stick a little thumb drive sized linux server between the ethernet port of the terminal and the rest of the network. Then it can put up the fake login screen whenever it wants, and at other times just pass through the packets.

This could be solved by requiring the terminal to use encryption with the key securely input into the terminal, but who is actually using such a scheme? I doubt anybody is.

Comment: Re:If it's accessing your X server, it's elevated (Score 1) 374

by countach (#48927621) Attached to: Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure

That's great, but if the terminal you're logging in with is compromised by the old fake login, then all your keystrokes into your super trusted proprietary app or browser session can be logged and then your passwords into THAT system are now compromised, not to mention screen grabbers which might have sucked down whatever secrets you were trying to keep. Your theory about supposedly "pushing security further into the system" is a mere placebo. There is nothing inherently more secure about a browser than about an operating system.

Comment: Re:Nothing New And Not a Problem (Score 1) 562

by countach (#48842979) Attached to: Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications

"no communication using a 3rd party as an intermediary has ever been totally secure. "

Define totally secure. A one time pad is pretty much totally secure. And not going via a 3rd party is no guarantee that someone might be eaves dropping. So your comment isn't really very helpful.

Comment: Re:No. (Score 2) 562

by countach (#48842975) Attached to: Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications

Depends what the hypothetical law is. Most likely it would allow them to go after any company to allow spying when they want to. The problem for them is what happens about code and programs that don't go through some central server and therefore there is nobody to chase and take to court when people use it to send encrypted messages.

Comment: Parents (Score 3, Insightful) 784

by countach (#48828519) Attached to: Parents Investigated For Neglect For Letting Kids Walk Home Alone

I don't know if letting kids this age walk home is the right thing, but I respect the right of the parents to make that decision. The world over child services staff are self-righteous twerps, who give all the signs of knowing very little about the range of problems parents face, and know even less about helping, rather than punishing parents trying to do the right thing.

Comment: Re:Following != agreeing (Score 1) 121

That's true I guess, but if the President made a public statement that "I don't even want to know about the junk policies of the tea party, I don't give them the time of day", then he is seen to be following them on twitter, then he would look like he is contradicting himself, which wouldn't be a good thing.

Comment: Re:The right to be presumed innocent? (Score 1) 91

"The police can set up a road-block and demand that drivers provide a breath test and proof of their license at any time. Isn't that a presumption of guilt rather than innocence?"

Not really, it's just a requirement to be subject to testing. Like if there is a rule saying you have to take your car to the mechanic once a year to test the brakes and indicators, it's not presuming anything about you being guilty.

"The taxman can deliver an assessment that says you owe $xxxxx in taxes and you are presumed to be guilty unless you can prove you don't owe that much in tax."

Well, that's not a criminal issue. There is no presumption bias in civil matters.

"Here in NZ, Kim Dotcom (love him or hate him) has had his assets seized and was incarcerated at the US government's whim"

Last I checked he is not incarcerated, and most of those assets were seized by the US, not NZ, but I take your point.

If a thing's worth doing, it is worth doing badly. -- G.K. Chesterton