After Reddit's employees refused to comment on the issue, most other default subreddits, including
This thread in
Link to Original Source
Take SSL/TLS. Are they going to demand both parties stash the session key, or do their handshaking through a proxy logging each packet?
Probably not. You're thinking like a geek instead of a politician. Politicians don't get their way by understanding technology. They get their way by finding people who do and forcing them to obey their will.
In this case, what Cameron means by banning encryption is passing laws that say something like, "If your website is used by people in the UK, you must always be able to comply with a warrant demanding data and you must provide all data, even if it is encrypted". The exact details of how that works is neither here nor there to them.
Now of course the interesting thing is how this interacts with jurisdictions, and whether it would be enough to make GCHQ shut up (probably not). The UK may or may not be able to force the hands of Facebook/Google/etc because the UK is such a huge market and they all have offices there, but China was a huge market too and Google walked away from that anyway. So it's hard to know how things would play out. For companies that have no UK exposure it's not clear what they'd do - probably use ad-hoc blocking of any website they suspect might be used by The Evil Terrorists if it doesn't comply. Could be a mess depending on how heavily they enforce it.
All those figures say is that birds of a feather flock together. Tory voters tend to live near each other and because the UK has a political system designed a long time ago for resolving local issues, not surprisingly it doesn't translate votes to seats directly at the national level. As local politics becomes less and less relevant, of course, people feel this system no longer works well for them.
However, as you note, it would not have mattered if Labour had won, or any other party. There are NO parties in the UK that believe people should be able to keep secrets from the government. It's just not something that fits into the political worldview. And because the voting system collapses thousands of decisions down to just one every so many years, surveillance and encryption is simply not democratically decided at all. Basically the wheel of power is decided by the economy, and that's about it.
Unfortunately this is not specific to the UK and is true nearly everywhere, France is even worse for example, and the USA pretends to care but realistically lots of Congressmen would very much like total surveillance of Americans
Ha ha, did you think he meant warrants?
He meant warrant. Unfortunately as is often the case with the Tories, they use words differently to how ordinary people do. By warrant he means a ministerial rubber-stamp. For instance Theresa May last year alone "signed" nearly 2,800 warrants, a number that clearly shows zero attempt to investigate their legitimacy and indeed almost certainly means some anonymous flunky is signing them on her behalf.
I'd imagine it's also because the Kaspersky guys spend much less time than Krebs trying to dox various malware authors and so on. The real life identities of those people are just much less relevant. So if a journalist comes and starts asking questions about various people who "anyone in the business should know" etc, and if your job is just analyzing malware all day but you don't much care about the real names of the people who make it, then you might come across as evasive when really they're just thinking, "that accusation might be kind of weak, but I don't know for sure either way, best to stay out of it". Especially if you'd rather not appear in print with your name next to the real name of a bad guy.
The Kaspersky question was kind of dumb anyway. Let's imagine that they have some sort of shadowy deal with Russian intelligence to avoid flagging their IC malware. I doubt it, but let's pretend they do.
What are you gonna do about it? Kaspersky is the best at what they do, and they've blown the covers of way more government malware than any other company out there, period. If you say, gosh, I don't trust those awful Ruskies, what if I get hacked by the Kremlin, I'm gonna go with a True Blue American Patriot AV company
Of course they can control their economic destiny. They could impose massive spending cuts, refuse to pay pensions, take big wage cuts and so on, and trigger the recession that way. But they'd rather not (no surprise)
Bitcoin is not actually deflationary. Its supply grows constantly until it eventually stabilises. The fact that Bitcoin prices have fallen a lot is more because lots of new people have discovered the project and decided they want some, but that effect will eventually peter out as Bitcoin becomes boring and everyone finalises their opinions of it.
Greece doesn't need fiat currency. What Greece needs is hard money – like the Euro (which is hard-ish, though not as hard as Bitcoin). This is because the Greek government is notoriously corrupt and the fact that they couldn't just print the pensions of their civil servants was one of the few things creating pressure to reform, and preventing outright pillaging of the savings of Greeks who do actually work in the private sector. Seeing Greece as one monolithic entity isn't right: there are different factions, not all of whom want the government to suddenly be able to spend whatever it wants. Hence the Greek people apparently voting for both keeping the Euro and not enacting any spending cutbacks, a contradictory position.
Ultimately Greece is going to get a lot poorer, no matter what. In many ways it's practically a third world country, one that was simply kept afloat by huge injections of foreign cash. But it never really stopped being third world in the way that it was run.
Bitcoin could, theoretically, benefit some Greek people now in the heat of the crisis because the Greek government wouldn't be able to impose capital controls on it. Thus preventing the outright theft of whatever little cash Greek's have left in the bank (sorry, I mean, solidarity tax/haircut/pick euphemism of choice). It is no magical cure for Greece's problems but it could tip the balance away from a government that discovered it was paying salaries and pensions for entirely non-existent departments, and towards people who are just trying to make a living.
Lots of things can be considered an API. For instance, who owns the copyright on OpenGL? Does anyone even know? What about HTTP? After all, a protocol is basically an API that runs over wires instead of call stacks. And HTTP/2.0 is a derivative work of SPDY which is
Following this US ruling all sorts of people and companies are now finding that they own IP they never even knew they had. This is already making lawyers the world over start licking their lips. It's going to be a shitstorm.
Of course they will (and do). They want their customers to have a great experience so they don't go to the competition. Hence the ability to review drivers, hence the automated calculation of the trip cost and so on.
It's systematically ignoring laws and regulations while going "wah wah, we're teh underdogs".
Uber is not unregulated and they do not stand in opposition to regulations in general, contrary to what many seem to believe.
What we're witnessing here is not State Vs Anarchy Round One. What we're witnessing is quite simply State Regulation vs Corporate Regulation. The existential question Uber faces is, can they convince society and government (not the same thing) that they're better at regulating taxi drivers via their technology than local taxi commissions are via paperwork? Even if Uber triumphs, this will not mean widespread usage of unregulated taxis, it just means that taxi drivers will live in fear of getting low star ratings instead of having their local medallion revoked.
Getting drunk and running amok is something you do when not home--at home you might exercise some moderation, or there'd be people who'd call you out on it whose authority you'd feel obligated to respect
I hate to say it, given that I'm British, but unfortunately the problem of a subset of Brits getting completely wasted and engaging in shitty, boorish behaviour isn't something restricted to holiday times. For some reason the UK just has a far more serious problem with drinking than other cultures and it happens at home as well. I normally don't go to the sort of European resort towns that the hooligan set like to frequent but on the occasions that I have done, it's always embarrassing as fuck to be a young male British tourist because you can sense the suspicion locals have that you might be about to do something stupid. The worst was when I visited Bratislava. Lovely city (well, town, by UK standards). The pub in the city centre had the phone number of the British embassy on the beer mats, for people to call in an emergency. The men's toilets had a poster warning Brits specifically not to hit on the local girls. When I was there, a group of Brits came in with some unbelievably grotesque, obese men being led by some extremely hot local girl. Very obviously a stag do. As one of the fattest guys walked past the table where me and my friend were sitting he said (very loudly) "I want to see some TITS".
I pretended to be Canadian. Luckily I don't have a strong British accent at all and I was travelling with an American, so it was somewhat plausible.
I think you're completely right that this behaviour is partly learned and transmitted, like some sort of mind virus. For some reason Brits seem far more likely than other people to feel they can't have fun or be socially relaxed until they've got drunk, and will happily admit it. It's not seen as something shameful, people just blurt it out, like saying it somehow makes them one of the group. Combine it with a culture that practically celebrates "laddishness" as being fundamental to being a man, and you've got a recipe for trouble.
Did you ever check out Microsoft Research's Singularity OS, which implemented a new OS kernel from scratch in a dialect of C#. It has no traditional processes and relies on software/compiler enforced isolation instead of VMM/page tables. It has some other rather interesting ideas in it too, like contract based IPC channels. Relatedly, there was some work done a while ago to allow better integration between garbage collected heaps and the kernel swap system (bookmarking collectors), but the patches were never merged. Do you have any thoughts on how Linux could better support non-C/C++ based software in this way?
Probably would have prevented Satoshi being anonymous when he launched bitcoin.org, and thus might have led to Bitcoin never existing at all.
For this reason the sane way to implement IPv6 as to do DHCPv6-PD and assign either 0 or 1 IPv6 address on the link interface.
From reading the linked bug report/discussion, it seems the Android team are open to implementing DHCPv6-PD. Their objection is basically to the notion that a lazily run network might use DHCPv6 to try and ensure devices only get a single IP address, thus forcing app/OS developers and users to deal with the crappy flakyness of NAT all over again. They are worried about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, in other words.
So I think your position is not so incompatible with Google's. Though if/when they plan to support DHCPv6-PD I do not know.
DHCP v6 exists not to coddle or comfort admins used to a v4 world. DHCP v6 was added because v6 will
/Never/ be adopted without it. Ever. Full stop. DHCP facilitates two-way communication prior to address assignment and lends flexibility to deployments that are now considered indispensable.
Having waded through the mega-thread with Lorenzo (who I've met by the way and he is a top class guy), this appears to be the nub of the dispute. It's some kind of immovable object/irresistible force situation.
The Android team build what is primarily a consumer product. When they make decisions, they think in terms of what is best for ordinary consumers. They also consider the needs of software developers. Therefore they highly prise qualities like "it just works" and "my apps don't break" and "I can tether without restriction". From this perspective as far as I can tell, Lorenzo's position is 100% correct. The founding vision of IPv6 was that you should always have as many addresses as you need for whatever purpose, and we should never need bizarre technical hacks to work around a lack of addresses ever again.
The network admins on that thread are building what they perceive as a 'take it or leave it' service, often, provided to a captive audience like a university campus or enterprise. Therefore they highly value qualities like "I can satisfy the legal department" and "I can use my existing hardware that only supports feature X" and "I can block tethering to my network to implement some security policy". They care relatively little about user or developer experience, as evidence by the number of comments on the thread of the form "If we can't get our way we'll just ban all Android devices" or "The device should tell the user that 464xlat is unavailable and let apps break" or "the device should tell the user that tethering is forbidden". They care little about application reliability or complexity as long as they can tick some boxes at the end of the day and satisfy various policies. From their perspective Android is just making their jobs harder and Lorenzo is therefore being mind-numbingly unreasonable.
This situation is somewhat confused and hard to distill because there seem to be multiple different things being discussed on the same thread, e.g. DHCPv6 PD which is apparently unrelated to address allocation.
Now, frankly, having read and understood many of these comments, I find myself siding (weakly) with Lorenzo, and not just because I know him. As an Android user and an app developer, my priorities are more closely aligned with that of the Android team. I do not wish to experience apps breaking or "tethering denied" messages in future due to some lawyer buttcovering that was translated into a network setup with the absolute minimum of effort by a monopolist IT department. If that means I fall back to IPv4 for a while instead, well, so be it. If that means my phone cannot reach the small number of IPv6 only networks when connected to some random university campus, OK, I'll use my LTE connection. And then I'll complain to the IT office and tell them "just buy an iPhone" is not an acceptable answer, so they had better get on it and allow my device to grab as many devices as it wants without having to go through a DHCPv6 server. Just like my home and mobile ISPs do. And if that means they have to do more work to satisfy the next BSA audit - well, that's why they get paid the big bucks.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side. - Han Solo