Fingerprints make terrible authenticators (passwords). Think of all the best password advice and then try to apply it to a fingerprint.
1) Don’t post it in plain sight 2) Don’t just use one password 3) Change your password if it is exposed 4) Don’t use dictionary words 5) Include numbers, capital letters and symbols
We leave your fingerprints all over the place every day. You've got 10 fingers, so you've got 10 passwords. What happens when you injure one or a company you've trusted has its database hacked? 9 passwords... The complexity of the hack is correlated with the complexity of the scanner, not the complexity of your finger print. Some scanners check only a few points and allow leeway to prevent failed scans. The "dictionary" is limited by scanner technology, which is out of your control, not by the "password" you select.
Guilty people get equal protection under the law, that's how we find out they're guilty to begin with. Tossing all the law-abiding citizens under the bus with a terrible precedent to 'get' one scofflaw who sure as sh*t looks guilty is wholly unacceptable.
Most people don't appreciate the concepts of (or difference between) Identification, Authentication, and Authorization. Fingerprints can be fine for Identification, claiming you are someone, just like a username that may be public knowledge. But it's not an Authentication and all the fingerprint scanners in the world seem to ignore that for ease of access.
It's reminds me of those services that could charge fees to your account based solely on your phone number. Just because someone knows my publicly available identification info doesn't mean that that 1) are me and 2) are authorized to make charges.
Powell had a couple of "whoopee boo-boos" but he didn't intentionally avoid the secure systems provided for his entire tenure, physically leaving the SCIF rooms all his actual work was done in to use an unsanctioned blackberry in the name of "convenience".
Trouble is, the security they ran on the server was so bad they have no idea whether it was breached or not. The "logs" don't show any hacks, but they also don't show no hacks. There have been multiple statements from high level intelligence agency chiefs stating they would be shocked if the server had not been infiltrated by foreign governments. Essentially we'll never know the full text of the emails, but China has had them for years.
Yup, yup, yup. She never wanted anyone to see any of them, personal or professional. That was the whole point.
Her Dept signed sworn docs that they turned over all pertinent records, including all work related emails, even though NONE of her emails were archived. Woops! 21 months later they submitted 30,000 emails (as a result of Guccifer 1.0 and the Bengazi hearings) and swore (again!) that was it, the other 33,000 weren't work related. But FOIA emails in her staffers and other government officals' inboxes have repeatedly proved that to be false. The FBI (and the Russians and Chinese probably) are reviewing those last ones that were never willingly released.
Remember, Bill was President Clinton first. They set up a foundation that has received around 3 billion dollars in donations, which is affiliated with mail.presidentclinton.com. There's a lot of speculation that Hillary was using this 'stealth' server to hide the mixing of business and pleasure between the Dept of State and the Foundation. That's a bit too 'conspiracy theory' for me, I'm content to focus on the legitimate and provable FOIA and mishandling State Secrets claims.
According to publicly available computer records, the IP (Internet Protocol) address for the mail.presidentclinton.com server is 22.214.171.124 from at least 2009 to 2011. Records also show that mail.clintonemail.com server has the same exact IP address, 126.96.36.199, from at least May 21, 2010 to October 21, 2010. That means the two servers must have been in the same location for that overlapping time period.
The Clinton staffers using blank logs as proof that nothing happened is like claiming your store wasn't robbed, even though the doors were wide open for 4 years, because the security cameras were turned off. We didn't see anyone come in a take all the files... we didn't see them NOT get taken either...
Stupid enough to buy an encryption cert but misconfigure the server to use the default one instead? http://archive.is/mfOH8
In order to ensure her e-mails were private, Clinton’s system appeared to use a commercial encryption product from Fortinet -- a good step, McGeorge said. However, when McGeorge examined the set-up this week he found it used a default encryption “certificate,” instead of one purchased specifically for Clinton’s service. Encryption certificates are like digital security badges, which websites use to signal to incoming browsers that they are legitimate. “It’s bewildering to me,” he said. “We should have a much better standard of security for the secretary of state.”
It is a ton of information with links to the sources; details like how she wasn't allowed to bring her Blackberry into her office (a SCIF) so she had to leave the secured area to read her email instead of using a secured computer.
"Clinton's private email server was attacked multiple times in one day"
This is an important statement because the server "logs" (such as they are) show no record of intrusions. This is being held up as proof that no one hacked the server, even though the logs are so sparse they don't show any reference to confirmed attacks.
Pied Piper is essentially immune to bandwith caps and zero rating discrimination. I mean, for god sake, have you seen their Weissman score?!? And that's before we even get into their neural net or sharded peer to peer distribution.
"The FCC would require existing programming distributors to provide the copyrighted programming they have licensed from content providers to third party manufacturers and app developers"
This argument seems to hinge on their belief that everyone would steal cable if they didn't have to get their tuner from the cable company. From the consumers' point of view that's ridiculous, the cable company would just shut off the service from the source. However my experience has lead me to believe that they are completely inept at controlling content and keeping 'premium' channels out of my house. Maybe we would all have free access to the raw feed if we didn't have their proprietary choke-point in every living room. Not that this legitimizes their complaints, it shouldn't be our job to not receive what they shouldn't have sent, but that may help explain this otherwise bat-shit crazy sounding complaint.
I'm not sure this is so open and shut. On the one hand, yes they appear to be different markets. However the Broncos are essentially grabbing the exclusive rights to put the name on shirts, something that Dr Pepper currently does: Official Apparel
Additionally, the term was popularized (according to Wikipedia: Orange Crush Defense ) by Woody Paige in the late 70's and early 80's in reference to a specific format of defense the Broncos ran. The name was a reference to both the orange uniforms, AND the popular soda brand. Sure, maybe they should be allowed to use it, but why should the Bronco's organization get exclusive rights to slap it on apparel?
Isn't this exactly what the Trademark application and opposition process is for? Having a public discussion mediated by a third party to determine what is reasonable?