Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Treason has been committed. (Score 1) 419

The fact that they've already been lying about this, that they've expressed specific interest in prosecuting the whistleblower and that they are now saying it's completely innocent totally ruins their creditability. The notion that this capability exists and yet is not used unscrupulously strains credulity. Does anybody believe that -even if the NSA itself only uses this data responsibly- its use will remain responsible given the kind of psychopathic crap coming out of washington these days?

Just as Obama assures us that "during his administration" Americans won't be indefinitely detained under the NDAA, obviously, whoever forced him to sign that law and request that section be placed into it in the first place anticipates it being used in the (near?) future. This person or group obviously is also responsible for the legally questionable practices outlined here and I don't believe for a second that the expected use has anything whatsoever to do with a so-called fantasy "war on terror". Clearly, those responsible for these policies are preparing to violently take over this country and enslave or kill many of its inhabitants. It is the only logical conclusion from their actions.

Comment: What was the problem? (Score 4, Interesting) 194

by lazylion (#43611473) Attached to: Interview: Ask John McAfee What You Will

If I understand correctly, this whole episode began because a local politician visited you in your home and he had the expectation (for whatever reason) that you would pay him USD $30,000 as some kind of protection money for his campaign and your expectation was that politicians are supposed to work for people and not the other way around. Is this a reasonable characterization? If so, how do you think such a large missmatch in expectations came about? Do you think you were overly naive? Or is the political environment in Belize changing? I can easily believe that this might be the normal expected way that people do business down there based on other things I've heard, but I really have no idea. Now that you've had time to reflect, what would you say was responsible for the conflict in the first place?

Security

Using War Games To Make Organizations More Secure 49

Posted by samzenpus
from the what-doesn't-kill-you dept.
wiredmikey writes "Along with budget constraints and disconnect between IT and executive management surrounding information security, results of a recent survey show that a major problem is outright lack of understanding of threats. We all know the best way to get that budget increased, is to get hacked. Unfortunately, that could also result in you losing your job. Some companies, however, are taking creative approaches to both raise awareness and identify potential vulnerabilities. A manager with a large financial services group, for example, says that his company addresses security vulnerabilities by staging a series of what it calls 'war games,' in which a user or group of users is tasked with trying to compromise a system, while another user or group of users is tasked with preventing the break-in. Management needs to understand the security threat and its impact to business, and these 'war games' are an innovative and creative way for IT departments to convince executive management on security needs."
Censorship

+ - TWiki.NET limits free speech of floss project-> 2

Submitted by
gmc2000
gmc2000 writes "On his blog, a Foswiki community member reports on a recent threat by venture capital company TWiki.NET at the address of TWiki<TM> fork Foswiki: "What they ask is "to stop the confusingly similar use of the TWIKI TM in vague statements". I find that an odd request, as the term 'vague' is highly subjective. If we (the Foswiki project) were to bow to their threats, where will it end? Do we have to remove the T-word completely from the Foswiki site? That sounds close to censorship to me, and (IANAL but) I am sure that is not how trademark law (even in the US) was meant."
The 'threat-o-gram' is directed at two community members personally, volunteers of the Foswiki project. In his reply, one of the adressees says not to be impressed: "We have a decent insurance at //SEIBERT/MEDIA for such cases. That would not cost me a single Penny.". Is this a classic example of a spider-like organisation making the mistake that it can attack a starfish-like organisation by disabling one or two of its 'legs'? Do their threats carry any weight, or are they based on a totally wrong interpretation of US trademark law?"

Link to Original Source

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...