EDIT: It's quite early here and my brain is only just coming online and I'd composed my response below reacting to your "All publicity" line thinking your post was for real... then I saw your sprinkling of "!!!" and on re-reading I realized I had nearly fallen for your gag. Well played sir/madam. Techdirt board, sorry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just my thoughts...
A: All publicity is good publicity - no, not really, this is an age-old myth
B: Lawsuits are expensive - exactly so, which is why Digital Homicide bizarrely tried to crowd-fund their litigation against Sterling and failed
C: If you're lucky you might get settlement payments - no-one really wins but the lawyers
D: This is a great opportunity to learn how the courts operate - I can't speak for you, but I'd rather gnaw my own face off than spend a day in a courtroom
See Sarah Black's comments above - this is how to respond to criticism, with a light touch and good humour. And a classic Star Trek clip.
It's not stellar. I'm wondering haw many turned down the invite. Being on this panel might not be a solid career move.
Exactly so. In fact it's better that your device (or you) isn't present. That would be an undesirable complication.
Why is crippling encryption being so vigorously pursued? I would argue that data (well, information) is the most valuable commodity there is. It gives you access to all those other commodities necessary to sustain and grow. And this has always been known. To quote Sir Francis Walsingham, spymaster to Elizabeth I; "Knowlege is never too dear". Machiavelli had a thing or two to say about it too..
Tea-bagging? That's like saying he didn't inhale.
That pig was porked...
Suing Wikipedia is a dick move. It's like taking a huge, steaming dump in the corner of the Sistine Chapel... punching Snow White in the guts at Eurodisney... talking on your phone during the Requiem Mass in D Minor...
Some things are just wrong.
""He probably acted alone," she told reporters at the time."
Ok, so the Belgian police found an incriminating video & a flag, but so what? And ok, he made a longish phone call to Abdelhamid Abaaoud, but again, so what? Mehdi Nemmouche could have been his interior decorator for all anyone knew. At that time.
For the sake of accuracy, the full quote was "From the images we have seen, we can deduce that the perpetrator probably acted alone and was well prepared," said Ine Van Wymersch, a spokeswoman for the Brussels prosecutor's office."
Which is a fair viewpoint when you see the images. Nemmouche had up till that point a criminal record. It's my belief here that regular law enforcement isn't sufficiently tied into anti-terror, at least for most parts of Europe. They have separate systems, distinct jurisdictions, often under different ministries. The UK & France especially so. Until they get their act together, more fish will slip through their nets. But when they do, my fear is that we will all be the poorer because of it.
All four cops doing the beating should be prosecuted. The fifth cop looks like he wanted to join in but there wasn't space.
An ingrained pack thug mentality with no accountability.
sigh
I agree that the bill will go nowhere, it'll make the US a tech desert. But I take exception to your comment on Wyden; he's no grandstander. I think he has principles, a rare quality for a politician.
That's a surprisingly valid point you make. Bosses, and standards like ISO9000, ISO27000, SOX...
"...these simple heuristics do little to help solve problems."
Neither does your criticism of someones post.
https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/
I can't really speak about separation of duties in America, but I wouldn't expect the average police officer to know much about ToR. Policemen seem good at things like directing traffic, breaking up/starting fights, conducting searches, confiscating valuables...
I would, however, expect the IT department whose job it is to investigate serious internet crime, such as terrorism & child porn, to know full well the ToR exit nodes, popular VPN exit points, proxies...
The more I see stories like this the more I am convinced that Law Enforcement and The Security Services are in dire need of professional help.
"or the guy thinking this "inconvenience" is the least bit acceptable."
I wonder if Mr. Francis knows how far up the ladder this was escalated, and whether he made it onto any lists?
I'm surprised they do this. My bank does not push data out, I have to access my records via https and a logon to their portal.
Sending sensitive information in plaintext over unencrypted connections to a gmail account is ludicrously weak infosec.
My personal favourite is that life is natures way of keeping meat fresh...
Yep, we get these warnings in Europe, too. We're warned about carrying cash or valuables, not because of high crime rates, but because the police are routinely confiscating it.
Always a valid point, but not really insurmountable.
True, but King George III was 5 cans short of a six-pack...
Opinion; you said it yourself. There are no rights or wrongs here so why not make yourself a nice cup of tea and calm down.
Moot. Now there's a lovely word. It comes from Old English you know.
Apologies, but it's a quiet day today. This business process seems fundamentally wrong:
300 - update database to indicate an assignment has been assigned to a field crew
302 - notify the field crew of the assignment
304 - verify the field crew's identity
306 - notify the field crew of successful login
308 - retrieve and present a list of assignments to the field crew
etc
If you can't find the crew, or verify them, you have to rollback the transactions (300) in the database. The script is far more reflective of real life, but the order is wrong. Here's what I think it should be:
DISPATCHER: This is Rosie, right?
ROSIE: Yep.
DISPATCHER: Hey, is your crew available?
ROSIE: Yep.
DISPATCHER: We need you to head over to Jimmie's place and fix his problem.
ROSIE: Okay.
DISPATCHER: Great. The job has been assigned to you.
Surely in real life you'd verify first?
"Who in the world is going to walk into a liquor store and mistake these two bottles for having come from the same source..."
In the remote chance someone did, would anyone care?