TruthHurts’s Techdirt Profile

numaqueue

About TruthHurts




TruthHurts’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 10th, 2018 @ 5:55pm

    Re:

    Hmmm - perhaps they were thinking string, then string to binary conversion?

    "1" + "1" = 11 (binary) - convert to "3" (decimal)??

    That seems to be the level of unthinking that the Australian government is shooting for.

    Maybe they'll call that OzBinDecMath? I'd think it would better to call it "MethMath" as only someone on drugs would think that was right.

    Has anyone checked the Australian government peeps homes for meth labs in their basements?

  • Dec 10th, 2018 @ 5:50pm

    Re: Forcing open source

    backdoor = exploitable, period, end of discussion.

    There aren't enough eyes, hell, there haven't been enough eyes on the combined numbers of humans ever alive to make "backdoored" encryption safe.

    It's statistically impossible to do with software (which includes software tokens, and hardware tokens are just customized hardware running software token code).

    At some point in the distant future, when they've stabilized n-factor qubits, they may be able to send physical encryption/decryption keys, one with vendor, one with device/software, one for NSA, one for KGB, one for 5-eyes, etc, drek-cetra, one thousand for hackers round the world for a pittance of the proceeds.

  • Dec 10th, 2018 @ 4:37pm

    Re: Say goodbye to technology companies Australia

    Hmmm, perhaps "phrankencryption" would be a better "term" to use for what the Australian government will call encryption after it's been dismembered, and all the dead pieces are put together with an "Abbie Normal" brain.

  • Dec 10th, 2018 @ 2:48pm

    Re:

    I work for a large global corporation that employs thousands of Australians.

    They are already looking at what it will take to exit Australia entirely because following Australia's "phakencryption" law will make us liable to global lawsuits and security audit findings that could cost us billions in fines.

    ie - Most countries outside of Australia require "real" encryption that cannot be broken by outside entities.

    Australia has just made itself the bane of global corporations.

  • Dec 10th, 2018 @ 2:43pm

    Re: Easy solution

    lol - easier circumvention

    USERNAME: admin
    PASSWORD: !@#$%

  • Dec 10th, 2018 @ 2:36pm

    Say goodbye to technology companies Australia

    Technology companies, insurance companies, accounting companies, any company that relies on encryption (including encryption at rest / encryption for backups / encryption for databases) will be saying goodbye to Australia.

    Global fortune 100s, 250s, 500s, will all be shuttering operations in Australia because they will not be able to use "real" encryption. They'd only be allowed to use "phakencryption" which would violate all kinds of global laws that require real encryption to protect personal information like financial transactions, health information, identification information, etc.

    I can't wait for all their government secrets to be exposed because they switched to "phakencryption" for all of their services to use.

  • Nov 9th, 2018 @ 7:04pm

    Before or after he'd resigned his position?

    If he did it after resigning, then he no longer had legal access to that data, which means each identity released is a charge of identity theft and illegal access to a computer system.

    How many thousands of "federal" charges can he withstand before being sent to prison, where he cannot assume the role he thinks he won?

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 7:19am

    If I pay for 4 concurrent streams...

    Then I can use 4 concurrent streams.
    Who cares where the streams are used.

  • Nov 2nd, 2018 @ 9:01am

    Re: Re: Re: OK, go tell your congress critter

    Tom Wheeler's FCC did this.
    Ajit undid it.

  • Oct 30th, 2018 @ 6:47am

    Have to look at it from Ajit's point of view, right?

    Ajit is only concerned with "speech" for the major vendors.

    AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, et al, believe that limiting data allowances, restricting certain (competing) traffic while zero-rating their own traffic, asking content creators to double pay for content delivery is what constitutes their "speech".

    Try to force them to not limit, to not-restrict, to not-zero-rate, to not double bill content creators is a restriction of their "corporations as people" constitutional right to free-speech.

    The corporations are delusional in thinking that, but they figure they have enough money to make their thinking legit through less than moral, less than legal means.

    Watching as Ajit parrots these clames, ridiculous as they are, seems to paint a picture of where those corporate dollars are going.

    It also makes one wonder where the eyes of the "oversight" teams/committees are if "it" (corruption) is as blatant as it appears to be.

  • Sep 25th, 2018 @ 2:26pm

    Re: Re:

    Freedom of Speech - ie - you do not have a right not to be offended.
    Freedom of Religion - ie - government cannot tell you what your religion is, or how to practice it

    Yeah, if a gay person decided not to sell cakes to Christians, I'd be okay with that. It would kill their business pretty damned quick, but that's okay if that's what they want to do with *their* business.

    I'm not a hater, but most, if not all LGBT members and their supporters seem to be, because they hate it when *ANYONE* doesn't let them do what they want.

    I don't hate, but I don't want it paraded around in my face either.

    What people do inside their homes is up to them.

    If they decide to step into my personal space to parade it, then I have a problem with it.

    If I run a business, I damned well can and will decide who I serve and who I don't.

  • Sep 25th, 2018 @ 2:16pm

    Re: Re: Google is *NOT* a Monopoly.. -- HA, HA, HA! What a shill!

    I can state unconditionally that I have never been paid by Google for anything.

    I just have a zero tolerence policy for stupidity.

    Everytime someone throws out the words Google and Monopoly in the same sentence, raises my ire, because it's obvious the person making the statement is a blithering idiot.

  • Sep 25th, 2018 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Re: Google is *NOT* a Monopoly.. -- HA, HA, HA! What a shill!

    Until the users stop using Google's services, they'll never go away.

    Sorry Kim.com, but you're predictions are based on faulty reasoning.

    If every user of the internet were a computer science, security and encryption geek, then yeah, things would be different.

    But the numbers of people who's knowledge of any of those is limited to relative zero-point makes up 99.999% of the internet's users.

  • Sep 25th, 2018 @ 10:48am

    Google is *NOT* a Monopoly..

    I don't know how many times I've said, others have said it, anyone who claims Google is a Monopoly is 3 brain-cells shy of a 4 pack.

    Google does *NOT* control how many people use their search engine.
    Google does *NOT* control how many people and/or companies use their advertising.

    Google does *NOT* control how much revenue they generate through the search engine and web-advertising businesses.

    Why do the idiots in the governments keep thinking they control that, when we know they don't?

    We, the people (real human-beings, not corporations) control how many times Google's search engine is used, and by that control, we control which web advertising services are used the most.

    Everyone across the globe that makes their own personal choice as to which search engine(s) to use makes the decision(s) for the companies that wish to present web advertisements to the people using those search engines and the websites linked from the search results.

    If a majority of the population were to use Bing for example, all of those government morons would be carrying torches and pitch-forks towards Microsoft HQ instead of Google.

    However, due to the fact that we, the populace, have made our preferences known, and due to the numbers that show those preferences, Google has the highest search engine usage of any search engine globally, and due to that usage, gets the lion's share of revenue for web advertising.

    That isn't due to Google scaring or forcing people or companies into using their services, it is due to their proficiency and excellence of service that we make that selection, thereby telling companies where to spend their advertising dollars.

    It's that simple.

    If the collective "we" don't want Google to be the top search engine or web advertising giant, then the collective "we" have to stop using their services.

    Until the collective "we" change our minds, Google gets the benefits of our daily choices.

    There is no Google monopoly. Never has been, never will be.

  • Sep 14th, 2018 @ 7:17am

    Project Verify - aka - Project EBD (Encryption Back Door)

    If you use this, you've just handed the feds the keys to your encryption for every web application or site you feed to this app.

  • Apr 9th, 2018 @ 10:34am

    Having been a CenturyLink customer in the past...

    I can truthfully state that all bills clearly stated "CenturyLink" on them, and the pay-to on the payments was "CenturyLink".

    The web-site to access our CenturyLink e-mail addresses was "mycenturylink.com" which auto-forwards to "centurylink.net"

    If all documents and web-sites use the single name CenturyLink, seems cut and dried to me.

  • Mar 28th, 2018 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re: Easy way to solve this...

    It certainly does do something.

    It shows the morons^H^H^H^H^Hembers of CAFC that APIs are "not" code.

    It shows conclusively that the CAFC are in fact morons for thinking they were the same and that copyrights do *not* apply to APIs.

  • Mar 27th, 2018 @ 11:07am

    Easy way to solve this...

    Give the CAFC all the documentation on the API.
    Let them ask as many questions as they'd like.
    Let them have access to Oracle programmers.

    Ask them to write a bit of code, using only the API, and then try to do something with it.

    No other languages/editors/IDEs/programming environments.
    Just API lines written in a text editor, saved as a file.

    Try to run the API program using only the API.

  • Mar 9th, 2018 @ 8:56am

    I think I've figured it out...

    The FBI director is borrowing a page from the cellular industry and their re-definition of the term "unlimited" to mean "all sorts of limits and restrictions".

    He's redefining "strong encryption" and "security" to mean "weak encryption" and "insecurity".

    Just like the cellular industry, he's just not telling us that that is what he is doing.

  • Mar 2nd, 2018 @ 7:38am

    Thus, we're hit with another reminder of the axiom...

    The opposite of "Progress" is "Congress"...

More comments from TruthHurts >>