Forgot your password?

Comment: How do you think that it should work? (Score 4, Insightful) 141

by j-turkey (#46370189) Attached to: Live Q&A With Ex-TSA Agent Jason Harrington


Thanks for being here and answering our questions. Given your experience working as a "line" TSA screener, how would you propose that we fix airport security, making it more effective, yet less intrusive for travelers? Clearly, the TSA isn't going away, and they will be the agency that regulates airport security for the foreseeable future. However, would you (for example) suggest empowering agents with additional flexibility? Perhaps implement policies more in-line with real security and risk management strategies, eschewing the current models of "security theater" and reactions to past threats? Maybe eschewing use of TSA's screeners, and having private firms provide security (again, under TSA regulations)? Something else altogether?

Comment: Re:Enough with the security theater! (Score 1) 289

Personally, I think any TSA employee in charge of TSA procedures needs to go through said procedure/screening every day before work.

Actually, they need to be fired and replaced by people with proper risk management training, as opposed to risk avoidance.

Risk Avoidance: Do everything in your power to prevent some risk, no matter the cost Risk Management: Assess the risk, consider the liklihood of the risk, the damage it will cost if it happens, then look at mitigations, how likely they are to work, how much they'll cost, etc... And make the cheapest decision. IE if on average the mitigation will prevent more loss than it costs, you impliment it. Otherwise you just accept the risk.

I agree with you in principle, however, this ignores how politics have played into the equation. What made me realize this was when the TSA proposed a change to the rules to allow small knives (up to 2.36") on planes again. At the time, this seemed like an exercise in proper risk management to me. However, there was an uproar among citizens and flight attendants. For (what appears to be) strictly political reasons, these proposed changes were cancelled.

It seems that the public suffers from a strange dichotomy where many of us are critical of security theater, but we still want security theater. Many want to believe that the government offers a great big security blanket that will never let anything bad happen to us. I'm sure that you and I know that there is no such thing, and the cost of this illusion is extremely high (both financial and to that of liberty).

Comment: Re:Depends on China (Score 5, Interesting) 325

by j-turkey (#46276459) Attached to: N. Korea Could Face Prosecution For 'Crimes Against Humanity'

You nailed it, DPRK is very much dependent on China for support. I don't fully understand why China wants to keep DPRK in power either, but I can shed a bit of light on the issue. You mentioned China's desire for a buffer between their borders and a westernized and America-friendly South Korea, this is a major issue. Another huge issue is that if the North Korean regime fails, China will have millions of refugees crossing its eastern border into areas that are already less stable than they would like. These areas have not developed at a rate consistent with the larger Chinese cities, and millions of Korean refugees would be a huge burden on those areas, threatening the regional stability - which is a hot-button issue for China.

I can't say that any country is immune from supporting regimes where atrocities exist when it supports their interests...but it doesn't stop me from being frustrated with China for supporting a failed regime like DPRK.

Comment: Re:It's not about Snowden! (Score 1) 148

by j-turkey (#46261435) Attached to: LA Times: Snowden Had 3 Helpers Inside NSA

Yes it is about Snowden. And who is helping him both in the country and out of the country. And what his agenda is, because it wasn't brought up in any election debate outside of Ron Paul's camp. And it was a fringe position there at the time.

This story has been played out and the vast majority of the people care a lot more about the weather, Olympics, jobs, their financial outlook or a bunch of other things that are more important than this. Foreigners care and are more than happy to see our power get taken down by our own traitor.

Agenda? He has made that clear. He's no Assange, he's not in this for the publicity. Have you bothered to watch the interview or read the articles?

American power taken down? That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. This is a government being is embarrassed by its own actions. Traitor? That's also bogus language - traitor to a government or its people? Which is more important, the nation and what our people find acceptable or protecting a government? I think the former - especially when the government is breaking its own rules, and circumventing the intended legal oversight. That's why it's not about's about what our federal government is doing - more inside its borders than outside of its borders; but if it takes an international embarrassment to begin an actual discussion of what we find acceptable as a society, so be it.

Comment: It's not about Snowden! (Score 5, Insightful) 148

by j-turkey (#46259757) Attached to: LA Times: Snowden Had 3 Helpers Inside NSA

This feels like a big fat smoke screen to me. This isn't about Snowden, it's about the federal governments wholesale wiretapping and warehousing of our personal data, an unprecedented overstep of policing and surveillance power. It's about secret FISA courts and undisclosed secret warrants that are rubber-stamped by appointed-for-life (unaccountable) federal judges in the name of national security. It's about a lack of oversight.

Every time we make this about Snowden and how the data was collected, "they" win a little bit more.

Comment: Re:Verizon is denying it: (Score 2) 298

by j-turkey (#46168259) Attached to: Is Verizon Already Slowing Netflix Down?

This is kind of old news. There are a series of articles from last year that suggest that the issue is a peering arrangement.

The articles that I've read seem to suggest that: Cogent is one of Netflix's primary ISP's. The ports used for peering between Verizon and Cogent have become saturated due to Netflix traffic to Netflix/Verizon residential customers. Since the flow of traffic is overwhelmingly to Verizon customers, Cogent feels that the peering arrangement is significantly asymmetrical that the onus is on Verizon to purchase additional ports (one article claims that each 10G port costs Verizon about $10k each). For various reasons, Verizon is not willing to do this - and it is widely speculated that Verizon is disincentivized from doing this due to their competing services. Further, Verizon could purchase relatively inexpensive 4u "Open Connect" boxes from Netflix, which will deliver content directly within their network - significantly reducing the bandwidth costs of delivering content over multiple networks. However, it is speculated that Verizon does not do this for the same reason that they don't add additional ports to their peers (such as Cogent).

This article explains it all better than I have.

Comment: Re:Good news !! GCHQ couldnt crack the password (Score 2) 374

by j-turkey (#45977483) Attached to: Man Jailed For Refusing To Reveal USB Password

Yes and no. I'm neither a security expert nor an expert in intelligence/counter-intelligence. However, if I were to break a crypto scheme, it is paramount that I never reveal that I have broken the crypto scheme. That way, I can continue to intercept and decode your secrets while you believe that your crypto scheme is safely protecting them.

If AES were broken, the last thing that a government entity would want to do was reveal that it is broken. In fact, if AES has been broken, UK law enforcement officials are extremely unlikely to even be aware of this. It would most likely be an entirely different branch of government (or a different government altogether - e.g. US) who has knows of and has the means to break a scheme like AES.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with your assertion that crypto is good, but this story does not in any way suggest that AES has not been broken yet. I am still suspicious, particularly given that the scheme was "blessed" by the American NSA.

Comment: Re:Cry me a fucking river... (Score 1) 374

by j-turkey (#45976977) Attached to: Man Jailed For Refusing To Reveal USB Password

The CNET article fails to mention context, and my understanding of the case law is that it isn't so simple. I can't speak to the specifics of the Colorado case in the CNET article, but I do know that the case of the Sebastien Boucher/CBP, Boucher was compelled to reveal his key based upon more than just reasonable suspicion. In this case, agents had actually seen child pornography on the system, and then shut the system down. The key was flushed from memory upon shutdown, rendering the data inaccessible. However, officers had already seen the incriminating data. Certain federal district courts have protected defendants from being compelled to reveal keys for the purpose of "fishing expeditions", when it is uncertain whether or not there is any incriminating data.


Comment: Re:Freakin' Riders. (Score 1) 767

by j-turkey (#45960531) Attached to: Incandescent Bulbs Get a Reprieve

...It takes an especially egregious asshat to be such a hypocrite as fuckwads who don't recognize that they use government resources and services EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THEIR LIFE. You want to live like a antisocial inbred dipshit in a cave somewhere, give Ted Kaczynski a call.... he might have some tips for you. Oh wait... even he used the Post Office. I guess he wasn't quit the fuckwad asshat you want to be.

Lighten up, Francis.

Comment: Re:It's about time! (Score 0) 1431

by j-turkey (#45954471) Attached to: Man Shot To Death For Texting During Movie

First I'm an NRA member myself. Second I didn't read the article, but by the summary this was in no way a self defense shooting and the perp should rot in jail. I am one that believes that self defense is a right granted by God the same way that freedom of speech and freedom of expression is granted. Wasting a life because somebody got pissed is not a good excuse. Now when it comes to movies personally I only go to the drive-in or watch Blu-Ray anymore and I even turn off my phone at the drive in as I don't want the distraction. The last time I was in a regular theater was 2007 when I watched The Simpsons Movie.

I know that this doesn't have to do with the point that you're trying to make, so please excuse me for hijacking your thread; but referring to any rights under the US Constitution as God-given has always given me pause - and I'm curious about your meaning. How are any of your rights as defined by the United States Constitution to be considered God-given? The canons of any Abrahamic texts (save, perhaps, for the Book of Mormon) were closed long before the fairly modern American Constitution was written...and these rights were not stated in any biblical text that I'm aware of (apologies in advance if you subscribe to some alternative religious doctrine). The term "God-given rights", in my understanding, is derived from a Monarch's assertion that their right to rule comes directly from a divine source. I suppose that Locke did write about certain rights as natural and therefore God-given, but he offered little basis for his religious overtones, and it seemed more like hyperbole than anything else to my (admittedly untrained) eye.

The same goes for assertion that a right to self-defense is God-given, albeit to a lesser extent - as the Bible may contain some verses about protecting ones self.

I guess what I'm asking is whether or not you've considered what you mean by God-given, or are you just using an old saying without any consideration to its meaning? If you believe that rights granted under the US Constitution are somehow explicitly endorsed by some sort of deity, what basis do you have for this belief? I'm legitimately curious, because I see this term used quite often, and it has always seemed strange to me.

Comment: Re:HOW?? (Score 1) 620

Whether I'm a slave or not, I am completely in favor of the assassination of such a monster. Law and order is worthless if it allows atrocities to happen.

Reading through this thread, I find your sense of ethics to be bizarre. It sounds to me like you're suggesting that if you don't agree with one law, everything else goes out the window. Given a large enough society, there will always be injustice. Justice is never perfect and it would be naive to assume that it can. A good society does its best to recognize injustices and and correct it where it exists...but there will always be different perspectives on what qualifies as injustice. Having a perspective that's different from the mainstream, or even being ahead of the historical curve on what qualifies as injustice that doesn't give one license to break every law. That would be stupid and that person would be an asshole - or at the very least, a criminal.

As of next Thursday, UNIX will be flushed in favor of TOPS-10. Please update your programs.