Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Test run (Score 2) 73 73

And why would a Russian firm have an interest in doing so...? Oh wait.

There are plenty of top-notch cybersecurity firms across the globe. How does Kapersky magically track down all these threats that others do not, and how are they all coincidentally coming from enemies of their greatest military customer, Iran?

If you honestly think that a country the size of Israel is more active in this area than the rest of the world combined, I suggest you take a second look.

Comment: Re:Not gonna happen (Score 1) 383 383

The only reason Iran is helping against ISIS is because of a decades-old Sunny vs Shi'a conflict. ISIS is Sunny and Iran is Shi'a. Iran is ISIS for Shi'a in every sense of the word: aspiration for world domination, use of torture and extreme violence both on its own people and its enemies, funding and carrying out of terrorism. The list goes on.

The only difference is that Iran has ICBMs capable of hitting half of the globe (hello Europe, soon hello US) and are now attempting to arm them with nuclear warheads. ISIS is 1/100th the threat by comparison.

Comment: Re:If no deal, then Iran *will* get nukes (Score 1) 383 383


The West has sufficient military capability to bomb their nuclear weapons program back to the stone age. What is currently missing is the political willpower to do so.

This is more of a reflection on our system's short-term focus than it is about what is morally the right thing to do.

The danger with Iran is not *only* its nuclear weapons program, it is their multi-decade history of funding and carrying out terrorist actions across the globe in order to spread their political reach. If you think such a regime could be trusted to honor a deal (which does not even restrict them from continuing such terrorist actions) and give them an Internationally-approved nuclear weapons program in 10 years then I strongly disagree.

Comment: Re:I've got this (Score 1) 400 400

When did Goebbels create a slashdot account?

Life is full of moments where you piss people off. The difference between you and me is I that don't give a shit about hurting the feelings of people who openly call for the death of Westerns like myself.

Freedom of Speech is not unlimited. It does not cover shouting fire in a crowded theater. It does not give you the right to incite violence against an identifiable group of people. ISIS is doing plenty of that and as such their videos should be censored.

Comment: Re:I've got this (Score 1) 400 400


Censoring ISIS recruiting videos is very clearly not in favor of ISIS and the only freedom it removes is one's freedom to get brainwashed by Muslim extremists.

There is no slippery slope here. Ban all videos put out by an organization called ISIS that feature executions. Who (that was care about) would be harmed by this action?

Comment: Re:Why do people want them down? (Score 1) 400 400


If these videos did not have an impact, ISIS (and other extremist groups) would not put them up. Do you honestly think that tens of thousands of Westerners would be flocking to ISIS if they had never heard of them?

There are plenty of young people looking for meaning in life, and they believe that ISIS will enable them to do so. Granted, if ISIS's propaganda wasn't around, they'd find something else. But I am willing to bet that whatever else they end up doing will be less destructive than beheading, raping and burning civilians alive.

Comment: Re:I've got this (Score 3, Insightful) 400 400

An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

Freedom of speech.

There done. Issue solved. Next?


Freedom of Speech for own own citizens is one thing. Freedom of Speech for people who are unquestionably trying to wipe out our citizens is another matter. One of the very first thing you do during a war is take out the enemy's communication capabilities. This is no different.

What is gained by enabling them to spread their propaganda? Why fight a battle with our hands tied behind our backs?

Comment: Re:Blocking is counter productive (Score 2) 176 176

Blocking child pornography will mean that the general audience will not be aware of its existence, hence they will not put pressure on politicians to end child abuse. Blocking child porn is counter productive, that's a fact. This I say as one of the founders of www.meldpunt.org and www.inhope.org.

Such nonsense. There are plenty of TV shows and news that discuss child porn (e.g. Law and Order: Special Victims Unit). You don't need to see it online in order to understand how harmful it can be for victims. There is absolutely no good reason to allow people to spread these videos. Imagine if your brother or sister was unfortunate enough to end up in these videos.

Comment: Re:A problem of trust (Score 1) 284 284

In an ideal world, individuals would use encryption that would protect their privacy from the run-of-the-mill attacker but not from the government.

Governments abused countless innocents throughout history. Trusting the government is foolish; one should always be cautious of what they do or say, but not mindlessly so.

In this case, it's not an issue of a lack of trust; this man's position is fundamentally ridiculous and privacy would be important even in an "ideal world" where the government was full of perfect beings.

That's fine so long as you understand the tradeoff you are advocating.

It will likely involve an increased amount of crime, terrorism and money spent on resources to tackle the aforementioned problems. I don't know how much of an increase we're talking about.

On the flip side, it will be harder for the government to snoop on its citizens. Again, I'm not sure how much harder it'll actually be.

Personally, I'd rather risk some unwanted government snooping (there will always be some bad apples) compared to the risk of crime and terrorism groups gained a foothold. The former is a potential attacker. The latter is a guaranteed attacker. The former provides some form of transparency. The latter provides none.

I don't believe that you can have it both ways. I see this as choosing the lesser evil.

Comment: A problem of trust (Score 1) 284 284

In an ideal world, individuals would use encryption that would protect their privacy from the run-of-the-mill attacker but not from the government.

The public backlash to such a model is the result of people not trusting their government (and by extension the police).

Tackle the lack of trust and these problems go away. This is a social problem, not a technical one.

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening