Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:That's not proof! (Score 1) 475

You're still entirely missing the point, so please allow me to clear it up for you. In the scenario we're discussing, specifically the utility of hidden containers with respect to plausible deniability, the police already have access to the outer container. Either the key decryption passphrase was directly conveyed to them, or they had the device owner unlock the outer container to facilitate spot inspection of the device and the device owner complied given his belief that he will be protected by hidden containers. At this point, the device is confiscated. If the outer passphrase was not supplied, it matters little at this point, because the volume is unlocked and mounted. The outer container key will be extracted shortly thereafter as a result by any one of numerous means.

The police now proceed to inspect the digital media in question. In many cases, said analysis will rapidly identify media regions which are likely to represent "hidden containers", and interesting interactions between the owner of the device and law enforcement personnel will commence shortly thereafter.

What part of this is unclear? Perhaps you should explain the nature of your experience with cryptography, preferably with emphasis on practical applications pertinent to this conversation.

Comment Re: Yawn (Score 1) 372

I'll paraphrase my reply to another poster here. I suggest we prosecute all current and former elected officials for every instance of dereliction of duty regarding the laws they swore to uphold and defend. We can start with the highest ranked members of the current and former administrations and work our way down and as far back as statutes of limitations permit. Do you take issue with this suggestion?

Comment Re: Yawn (Score 1) 372

Note: I'm not the AC from the GP comment, but I feel the need to respond here.

You are frothing at the mouth at how bad the current president is, and yet conveniently forget how so many people thought the previous president was just as bad.

The moment Mr. Obama took the oath of office, he assumed responsibility for upholding the law. Nothing you've said changes the fact that he has grossly abused the law beyond recognition.

Hell idiots like you extol the virtues of even older presidents like Reagan, whats wrong with pointing out the foibles of someone more recent?

The problem is simply that you're not interested in having a productive discussion of what to do about corruption in government, and you choose to waste your keystrokes on childish "but the other guy was wrong too" games.

no different from those people you despise

You have offered no supporting evidence for that rather expansive assertion. For my part, I suggest we prosecute all current and former elected officials for every instance of dereliction of duty regarding the laws they swore to uphold and defend. We can start with the highest ranked members of the current and former administrations and work our way down and as far back as statutes of limitations permit. Do you take issue with this suggestion?

Comment Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? (Score 1) 163

I suggest you take a much closer look at how power is consolidated in politics, and at how many of your elected officials greatly benefit from "career public service" for the duration of their lives (and their children's lives, in many cases). These points aside, you also appear to have a limited understanding of the fundamental desire for power over others; this is a characteristic that is frequently presented as a desire to "help" fellow citizens, when the end results are all too often anything but helpful.

I am certainly not opposed to people achieving great financial success, nor am I claiming that all or even most rich men desire elected office. It must still be noted that elected representatives, especially but certainly not limited to those holding certain federal offices, already heavily tend toward possession of far greater financial resources than the majority of the people they govern. The GGP suggestion that campaign contributions should be made illegal would only serve to further increase that trend, which is an outcome I believe NoKaOi would be unhappy with.

"Boss" Tweed serves as an interesting case study in some of these points. Unfortunately, while the sheer magnitude of his transgressions outstripped those of most of his contemporaries, his behavioral patterns remain disconcertingly common among politicians in the present day. This is an unfortunate side effect of basic human nature having remained wholly unchanged in the interim.

Comment Re:Yawn (Score 2) 372

plainly opposite in many cases if they are trying to stop social improvements like immigration reform

This is a subjective statement. One person may consider a particular immigration reform position as representing social improvement, while another may view the position as damaging to the same society.

Comment Re:Oh...they have access to better imagery... (Score 1) 82

NGA is the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (alternate Wikipedia source: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency). It should be noted that while NGA and Google both supplied funding for the satellite, NGA's contribution was approximately USD $248M, while Google's portion of the funding was remitted through GeoEye (which was later purchased by DigitalGlobe in 2013) under a contract for which the terms have not been publicly disclosed. While the exact amount of Google-supplied capital is unknown, it may be safely assumed to be a considerable percentage of the balance of the project cost and thereby a de facto partial ownership arrangement, given the obvious market benefits afforded to Google through the deal (see also "GeoEye Reports Record 2009 Third Quarter Results" for interesting numbers). In a more fiscally transparent demonstration of the company's high interest in this field, Google entered into an agreement to purchase Skybox Imaging outright for USD $500M on June 10, 2014.

It should also be noted that Google acquired exclusive rights to GeoEye-1 imaging data for online mapping purposes, which is not equivalent to a broader exclusive general purpose license. Other companies would have been free to contract with GeoEye for non-online-mapping use of the data. The arrangement has invited questions from some parties concerning the enforceability of copyright claims on the data, as it is produced with 50% funding from the United States federal government. While it is understood that down-sampled (50 cm resolution) images are provided directly to Google and other companies partially at taxpayer expense, it is important to understand the applicability of exceptions in law to copyright terms on work produced by or supported by the U.S. government.

Comment Re:Oh...they have access to better imagery... (Score 4, Informative) 82

GeoEye and DigitalGlobe merged in January of 2013. From launch to the present day, Google has maintained exclusive online mapping rights to the data produced by the GeoEye-1 satellite, often referred to as Google-1. The Google logo was on the Delta II rocket that put the satellite into orbit. While NGA and Google collaborated to provide funding in the amount of approximately USD $500M for the satellite and launch, it's a bit disingenuous to say Google shouldn't have been considered an owner.

Comment Re:Why are these numbers stored? (Score 1) 117

PCI/DSS isn't simply about being able to claim nebulous adherence to "best practices"; it's about an organization's ability to maintain a business relationship with their customers and an upstream merchant account provider under certain agreed upon minimum standards for data security. Quoting PCI Data Storage Do’s and Don’ts:

Do not store sensitive authentication data contained in the payment card’s storage chip or full magnetic stripe, including the printed 3-4 digit card validation code on the front or back of the payment card after authorization.

This point in particular is not flexible in nature. Storing that specific information, or failing to take specific steps to secure the access perimeter and specific systems through which said information traverses, are quick routes to termination of a merchant agreement. Such failures may also expose a business to significant legal liability; litigation rapidly becomes impressively expensive in the event of a breach whereby it comes to light that the business in question failed to follow basic PCI/DSS tenets, and said legal proceedings may turn into an even greater circus if dominant upstream EFT players such as Visa, etc believe there is reason to assume negligence on the part of an auditing firm that supposedly delivered a satisfactory report on compliance to the errant business. Reference the recent Target debacle for a fine example of such complications.

There are no magic bullets, but there are baselines. Those baselines could certainly use significant improvement, but that doesn't matter much if the business servicing the consumer doesn't care to consider even basic adherence to agreed upon information security standards as a critical factor.

Slashdot Top Deals

The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.