November 8, 2013 at 11:37 am
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (11/8/2013)
Interesting. Wonder what some you think?https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/why_the_governm.html
Teddy Roosevelt gave incredible access to reporters and encouraged them to root out corruption and problems. If you can find honest, ethical reporters, it can be a great thing for the country. I'm all in favor of greater governmental openness and transparency. I'm only not in favor of leaks if they're done by the government in an attempt to silence critics.
My first thought is about the author. I have his book "Applied Cryptography" on my shelf at work.
Transparency on the part of government would be great, but there are too many hidden agendas by all those involved. The system could work, as Stefan said, if we had honest people involved.
So it's inevitable that it couldn't work any time in the close future, since we have modern politicians involved - maybe there are some honest people amongst them, but not many; and of course while there are some honest newsmen, there are too many who want to maximise their following amongst readers by publishing the "best" story regardless of its truth and regardless of the damage its publication may cause. It's a regrettable fact that we would be far better of if many newsmen and most politicians stopped pretending to tell the truth and admitted that they are skilled producers of works of fiction.
Tom
November 8, 2013 at 11:41 am
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
You know, thinking about this some more, it really is a shame we aren't more honest and transparent as a whole. I wonder what this says about us as a global society. It makes me wonder how people of the future will view this period in history from their perspective. They'll have the benefit of hindsight, which we don't have when considering our own time.
One thing's for sure...Reading that article sure did inspire some serious thought about the subject.
yep, and yep. Agree.
November 8, 2013 at 11:50 am
L' Eomot Inversé (11/8/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (11/8/2013)
Interesting. Wonder what some you think?https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/why_the_governm.html
Teddy Roosevelt gave incredible access to reporters and encouraged them to root out corruption and problems. If you can find honest, ethical reporters, it can be a great thing for the country. I'm all in favor of greater governmental openness and transparency. I'm only not in favor of leaks if they're done by the government in an attempt to silence critics.
My first thought is about the author. I have his book "Applied Cryptography" on my shelf at work.
Transparency on the part of government would be great, but there are too many hidden agendas by all those involved. The system could work, as Stefan said, if we had honest people involved.
So it's inevitable that it couldn't work any time in the close future, since we have modern politicians involved - maybe there are some honest people amongst them, but not many; and of course while there are some honest newsmen, there are too many who want to maximise their following amongst readers by publishing the "best" story regardless of its truth and regardless of the damage its publication may cause. It's a regrettable fact that we would be far better of if many newsmen and most politicians stopped pretending to tell the truth and admitted that they are skilled producers of works of fiction.
It has worked in the past and the politicians of now, by and large, are little different from those of yesteryear. The main differences are which of them have the most power and that the media has changed back to a gilded age model. The delivery methods and consumption habits differ enough now that it is harder to get the honest, ethical newspeople a wide enough audience to make as big a difference.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
November 8, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
L' Eomot Inversé (11/8/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (11/8/2013)
Interesting. Wonder what some you think?https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/why_the_governm.html
Teddy Roosevelt gave incredible access to reporters and encouraged them to root out corruption and problems. If you can find honest, ethical reporters, it can be a great thing for the country. I'm all in favor of greater governmental openness and transparency. I'm only not in favor of leaks if they're done by the government in an attempt to silence critics.
My first thought is about the author. I have his book "Applied Cryptography" on my shelf at work.
Transparency on the part of government would be great, but there are too many hidden agendas by all those involved. The system could work, as Stefan said, if we had honest people involved.
So it's inevitable that it couldn't work any time in the close future, since we have modern politicians involved - maybe there are some honest people amongst them, but not many; and of course while there are some honest newsmen, there are too many who want to maximise their following amongst readers by publishing the "best" story regardless of its truth and regardless of the damage its publication may cause. It's a regrettable fact that we would be far better of if many newsmen and most politicians stopped pretending to tell the truth and admitted that they are skilled producers of works of fiction.
It has worked in the past and the politicians of now, by and large, are little different from those of yesteryear. The main differences are which of them have the most power and that the media has changed back to a gilded age model. The delivery methods and consumption habits differ enough now that it is harder to get the honest, ethical newspeople a wide enough audience to make as big a difference.
What has changed is the PATRIOT Act which allows anonymous bureaucrats put anyone critical of government policies, including honest journalists, on the terror suspect list and on the no-fly list. Very few brave souls dare to risk it.
November 8, 2013 at 12:08 pm
Revenant (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
L' Eomot Inversé (11/8/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (11/8/2013)
Interesting. Wonder what some you think?https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/why_the_governm.html
Teddy Roosevelt gave incredible access to reporters and encouraged them to root out corruption and problems. If you can find honest, ethical reporters, it can be a great thing for the country. I'm all in favor of greater governmental openness and transparency. I'm only not in favor of leaks if they're done by the government in an attempt to silence critics.
My first thought is about the author. I have his book "Applied Cryptography" on my shelf at work.
Transparency on the part of government would be great, but there are too many hidden agendas by all those involved. The system could work, as Stefan said, if we had honest people involved.
So it's inevitable that it couldn't work any time in the close future, since we have modern politicians involved - maybe there are some honest people amongst them, but not many; and of course while there are some honest newsmen, there are too many who want to maximise their following amongst readers by publishing the "best" story regardless of its truth and regardless of the damage its publication may cause. It's a regrettable fact that we would be far better of if many newsmen and most politicians stopped pretending to tell the truth and admitted that they are skilled producers of works of fiction.
It has worked in the past and the politicians of now, by and large, are little different from those of yesteryear. The main differences are which of them have the most power and that the media has changed back to a gilded age model. The delivery methods and consumption habits differ enough now that it is harder to get the honest, ethical newspeople a wide enough audience to make as big a difference.
What has changed is the PATRIOT Act which allows anonymous bureaucrats put anyone critical of government policies, including honest journalists, on the terror suspect list and on the no-fly list. Very few brave souls dare to risk it.
You forgot to mention the part where they can also tap your phone (without the NSA's involvement), get your internet usage and get which library books you've checked out. They can do it all without a warrant or court order and the entities providing the information must comply and cannot inform anyone that they were even asked for the information to begin with. That was quite a piece of...legislation.
Again, I'm forced to wonder how people of the future will look back on this period in history from their perspective.
November 8, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Revenant (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
L' Eomot Inversé (11/8/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (11/8/2013)
Interesting. Wonder what some you think?https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/why_the_governm.html
Teddy Roosevelt gave incredible access to reporters and encouraged them to root out corruption and problems. If you can find honest, ethical reporters, it can be a great thing for the country. I'm all in favor of greater governmental openness and transparency. I'm only not in favor of leaks if they're done by the government in an attempt to silence critics.
My first thought is about the author. I have his book "Applied Cryptography" on my shelf at work.
Transparency on the part of government would be great, but there are too many hidden agendas by all those involved. The system could work, as Stefan said, if we had honest people involved.
So it's inevitable that it couldn't work any time in the close future, since we have modern politicians involved - maybe there are some honest people amongst them, but not many; and of course while there are some honest newsmen, there are too many who want to maximise their following amongst readers by publishing the "best" story regardless of its truth and regardless of the damage its publication may cause. It's a regrettable fact that we would be far better of if many newsmen and most politicians stopped pretending to tell the truth and admitted that they are skilled producers of works of fiction.
It has worked in the past and the politicians of now, by and large, are little different from those of yesteryear. The main differences are which of them have the most power and that the media has changed back to a gilded age model. The delivery methods and consumption habits differ enough now that it is harder to get the honest, ethical newspeople a wide enough audience to make as big a difference.
What has changed is the PATRIOT Act which allows anonymous bureaucrats put anyone critical of government policies, including honest journalists, on the terror suspect list and on the no-fly list. Very few brave souls dare to risk it.
You forgot to mention the part where they can also tap your phone (without the NSA's involvement), get your internet usage and get which library books you've checked out. They can do it all without a warrant or court order and the entities providing the information must comply and cannot inform anyone that they were even asked for the information to begin with. That was quite a piece of...legislation.
Again, I'm forced to wonder how people of the future will look back on this period in history from their perspective.
Yeah, both of these are the functional equivalent of the Alien & Sedition Acts (1798), The Espionage Act (1917), the Sedition Act (1918) and many others which have been created, modified and eventually repealed over the years.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
November 8, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Revenant (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
L' Eomot Inversé (11/8/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (11/8/2013)
Interesting. Wonder what some you think?https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/why_the_governm.html
Teddy Roosevelt gave incredible access to reporters and encouraged them to root out corruption and problems. If you can find honest, ethical reporters, it can be a great thing for the country. I'm all in favor of greater governmental openness and transparency. I'm only not in favor of leaks if they're done by the government in an attempt to silence critics.
My first thought is about the author. I have his book "Applied Cryptography" on my shelf at work.
Transparency on the part of government would be great, but there are too many hidden agendas by all those involved. The system could work, as Stefan said, if we had honest people involved.
So it's inevitable that it couldn't work any time in the close future, since we have modern politicians involved - maybe there are some honest people amongst them, but not many; and of course while there are some honest newsmen, there are too many who want to maximise their following amongst readers by publishing the "best" story regardless of its truth and regardless of the damage its publication may cause. It's a regrettable fact that we would be far better of if many newsmen and most politicians stopped pretending to tell the truth and admitted that they are skilled producers of works of fiction.
It has worked in the past and the politicians of now, by and large, are little different from those of yesteryear. The main differences are which of them have the most power and that the media has changed back to a gilded age model. The delivery methods and consumption habits differ enough now that it is harder to get the honest, ethical newspeople a wide enough audience to make as big a difference.
What has changed is the PATRIOT Act which allows anonymous bureaucrats put anyone critical of government policies, including honest journalists, on the terror suspect list and on the no-fly list. Very few brave souls dare to risk it.
You forgot to mention the part where they can also tap your phone (without the NSA's involvement), get your internet usage and get which library books you've checked out. They can do it all without a warrant or court order and the entities providing the information must comply and cannot inform anyone that they were even asked for the information to begin with. That was quite a piece of...legislation.
Again, I'm forced to wonder how people of the future will look back on this period in history from their perspective.
Your computer and devices have become a window into which the goverment has become the man in the middle. Lack of a warrant means big brother can do what it wants, when it wants. We (and the rest of the world) have lost more than most realize with this.
And with the storing of this 'data' for analysis, it is a honey pot of information, just waiting for someone to take it and seriously misuse it.
So how convenient - voicemails converted to text automatically. Recording a conversation just became easier.
And as you leave your cell phone on, here's the path of where you've been.
November 8, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Greg Edwards-268690 (11/8/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Revenant (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
L' Eomot Inversé (11/8/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (11/8/2013)
Interesting. Wonder what some you think?https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/why_the_governm.html
Teddy Roosevelt gave incredible access to reporters and encouraged them to root out corruption and problems. If you can find honest, ethical reporters, it can be a great thing for the country. I'm all in favor of greater governmental openness and transparency. I'm only not in favor of leaks if they're done by the government in an attempt to silence critics.
My first thought is about the author. I have his book "Applied Cryptography" on my shelf at work.
Transparency on the part of government would be great, but there are too many hidden agendas by all those involved. The system could work, as Stefan said, if we had honest people involved.
So it's inevitable that it couldn't work any time in the close future, since we have modern politicians involved - maybe there are some honest people amongst them, but not many; and of course while there are some honest newsmen, there are too many who want to maximise their following amongst readers by publishing the "best" story regardless of its truth and regardless of the damage its publication may cause. It's a regrettable fact that we would be far better of if many newsmen and most politicians stopped pretending to tell the truth and admitted that they are skilled producers of works of fiction.
It has worked in the past and the politicians of now, by and large, are little different from those of yesteryear. The main differences are which of them have the most power and that the media has changed back to a gilded age model. The delivery methods and consumption habits differ enough now that it is harder to get the honest, ethical newspeople a wide enough audience to make as big a difference.
What has changed is the PATRIOT Act which allows anonymous bureaucrats put anyone critical of government policies, including honest journalists, on the terror suspect list and on the no-fly list. Very few brave souls dare to risk it.
You forgot to mention the part where they can also tap your phone (without the NSA's involvement), get your internet usage and get which library books you've checked out. They can do it all without a warrant or court order and the entities providing the information must comply and cannot inform anyone that they were even asked for the information to begin with. That was quite a piece of...legislation.
Again, I'm forced to wonder how people of the future will look back on this period in history from their perspective.
Your computer and devices have become a window into which the goverment has become the man in the middle. Lack of a warrant means big brother can do what it wants, when it wants. We (and the rest of the world) have lost more than most realize with this.
And with the storing of this 'data' for analysis, it is a honey pot of information, just waiting for someone to take it and seriously misuse it.
So how convenient - voicemails converted to text automatically. Recording a conversation just became easier.
And as you leave your cell phone on, here's the path of where you've been.
That's an interesting way to put it. I wonder if someone who ends up damaged by this information can sue the government for maintaining an "attractive nuisance"
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
November 8, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
Greg Edwards-268690 (11/8/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Revenant (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
L' Eomot Inversé (11/8/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (11/8/2013)
Interesting. Wonder what some you think?https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/why_the_governm.html
Teddy Roosevelt gave incredible access to reporters and encouraged them to root out corruption and problems. If you can find honest, ethical reporters, it can be a great thing for the country. I'm all in favor of greater governmental openness and transparency. I'm only not in favor of leaks if they're done by the government in an attempt to silence critics.
My first thought is about the author. I have his book "Applied Cryptography" on my shelf at work.
Transparency on the part of government would be great, but there are too many hidden agendas by all those involved. The system could work, as Stefan said, if we had honest people involved.
So it's inevitable that it couldn't work any time in the close future, since we have modern politicians involved - maybe there are some honest people amongst them, but not many; and of course while there are some honest newsmen, there are too many who want to maximise their following amongst readers by publishing the "best" story regardless of its truth and regardless of the damage its publication may cause. It's a regrettable fact that we would be far better of if many newsmen and most politicians stopped pretending to tell the truth and admitted that they are skilled producers of works of fiction.
It has worked in the past and the politicians of now, by and large, are little different from those of yesteryear. The main differences are which of them have the most power and that the media has changed back to a gilded age model. The delivery methods and consumption habits differ enough now that it is harder to get the honest, ethical newspeople a wide enough audience to make as big a difference.
What has changed is the PATRIOT Act which allows anonymous bureaucrats put anyone critical of government policies, including honest journalists, on the terror suspect list and on the no-fly list. Very few brave souls dare to risk it.
You forgot to mention the part where they can also tap your phone (without the NSA's involvement), get your internet usage and get which library books you've checked out. They can do it all without a warrant or court order and the entities providing the information must comply and cannot inform anyone that they were even asked for the information to begin with. That was quite a piece of...legislation.
Again, I'm forced to wonder how people of the future will look back on this period in history from their perspective.
Your computer and devices have become a window into which the goverment has become the man in the middle. Lack of a warrant means big brother can do what it wants, when it wants. We (and the rest of the world) have lost more than most realize with this.
And with the storing of this 'data' for analysis, it is a honey pot of information, just waiting for someone to take it and seriously misuse it.
So how convenient - voicemails converted to text automatically. Recording a conversation just became easier.
And as you leave your cell phone on, here's the path of where you've been.
That's an interesting way to put it. I wonder if someone who ends up damaged by this information can sue the government for maintaining an "attractive nuisance"
No, and that is art of the setup.
November 11, 2013 at 6:04 am
Revenant (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
Greg Edwards-268690 (11/8/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Revenant (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
L' Eomot Inversé (11/8/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/8/2013)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (11/8/2013)
Interesting. Wonder what some you think?https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/why_the_governm.html
Teddy Roosevelt gave incredible access to reporters and encouraged them to root out corruption and problems. If you can find honest, ethical reporters, it can be a great thing for the country. I'm all in favor of greater governmental openness and transparency. I'm only not in favor of leaks if they're done by the government in an attempt to silence critics.
My first thought is about the author. I have his book "Applied Cryptography" on my shelf at work.
Transparency on the part of government would be great, but there are too many hidden agendas by all those involved. The system could work, as Stefan said, if we had honest people involved.
So it's inevitable that it couldn't work any time in the close future, since we have modern politicians involved - maybe there are some honest people amongst them, but not many; and of course while there are some honest newsmen, there are too many who want to maximise their following amongst readers by publishing the "best" story regardless of its truth and regardless of the damage its publication may cause. It's a regrettable fact that we would be far better of if many newsmen and most politicians stopped pretending to tell the truth and admitted that they are skilled producers of works of fiction.
It has worked in the past and the politicians of now, by and large, are little different from those of yesteryear. The main differences are which of them have the most power and that the media has changed back to a gilded age model. The delivery methods and consumption habits differ enough now that it is harder to get the honest, ethical newspeople a wide enough audience to make as big a difference.
What has changed is the PATRIOT Act which allows anonymous bureaucrats put anyone critical of government policies, including honest journalists, on the terror suspect list and on the no-fly list. Very few brave souls dare to risk it.
You forgot to mention the part where they can also tap your phone (without the NSA's involvement), get your internet usage and get which library books you've checked out. They can do it all without a warrant or court order and the entities providing the information must comply and cannot inform anyone that they were even asked for the information to begin with. That was quite a piece of...legislation.
Again, I'm forced to wonder how people of the future will look back on this period in history from their perspective.
Your computer and devices have become a window into which the goverment has become the man in the middle. Lack of a warrant means big brother can do what it wants, when it wants. We (and the rest of the world) have lost more than most realize with this.
And with the storing of this 'data' for analysis, it is a honey pot of information, just waiting for someone to take it and seriously misuse it.
So how convenient - voicemails converted to text automatically. Recording a conversation just became easier.
And as you leave your cell phone on, here's the path of where you've been.
That's an interesting way to put it. I wonder if someone who ends up damaged by this information can sue the government for maintaining an "attractive nuisance"
No, and that is art of the setup.
They make the laws, so they decide what they can legally do to people in the interests of whatever they want. The phrases "greater good", "public interest" and "national security" are top-of-mind. Besides, you have to have an awful lot of both money and time to sue the government. Money can buy teams of lawyers. Let's face it - none of us are going to out-spend the government.
November 11, 2013 at 7:30 am
Ed Wagner (11/11/2013)
They make the laws, so they decide what they can legally do to people in the interests of whatever they want. The phrases "greater good", "public interest" and "national security" are top-of-mind. Besides, you have to have an awful lot of both money and time to sue the government. Money can buy teams of lawyers. Let's face it - none of us are going to out-spend the government.
And ironically, you would be funding both sides of this fight, win or lose.
November 11, 2013 at 10:23 am
Ed Wagner (11/8/2013)
rodjkidd (11/7/2013)
It would appear that someone decided to switch off a bunch of import jobs on one of servers.Spookily they didn't run from 1st Nov to 4th Nov inclusive. So the day after Halloween and the day before Guy Forkes nights... Dun Dun Daaaah.
Rodders...
I think someone's definitely out to get you. 😉 Instead of starting with the ghosts, I'd start with people who have access to switch the jobs off. They're a little more responsive to being beaten with sticks. 😀
Very true! Pretty sure we know who did it. Its six of one half a dozen of the other. The prod DBA's haven't quite taken full control of the server, the team who used to manage it still have access. It's just a pity they don't mention what they have done, we end up wasting time on tickets being logged trying to work out why things haven't happened etc.
I'm sure they will sort it out soon. 😉
Rodders...
November 11, 2013 at 10:58 am
Greg Edwards-268690 (11/11/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/11/2013)
They make the laws, so they decide what they can legally do to people in the interests of whatever they want. The phrases "greater good", "public interest" and "national security" are top-of-mind. Besides, you have to have an awful lot of both money and time to sue the government. Money can buy teams of lawyers. Let's face it - none of us are going to out-spend the government.
And ironically, you would be funding both sides of this fight, win or lose.
The only real winners would be the lawyers, unfortunately.
November 11, 2013 at 11:44 am
Revenant (11/11/2013)
Greg Edwards-268690 (11/11/2013)
Ed Wagner (11/11/2013)
They make the laws, so they decide what they can legally do to people in the interests of whatever they want. The phrases "greater good", "public interest" and "national security" are top-of-mind. Besides, you have to have an awful lot of both money and time to sue the government. Money can buy teams of lawyers. Let's face it - none of us are going to out-spend the government.
And ironically, you would be funding both sides of this fight, win or lose.
The only real winners would be the lawyers, unfortunately.
You hit the nail on the head there.
November 12, 2013 at 10:18 am
My new blog post on appropriate data types for storing latitude and longitude coordinates is up.
Thanks for indulging me in a little bit of self-promotion. I'm finding that it's hard to hit the critical mass of audience where a new post gets attention just by virtue of being posted.
Jason Wolfkill
Viewing 15 posts - 42,091 through 42,105 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply