2965 posts • joined Monday 31st May 2010 16:59 GMT
Re: You like hard questions? ;)
"Why make the move to Server 2012 with its dinkey-toy interface, while you can still get Server 2008R2?"
This is a damned good question, sir, and one I still don't have a satisfying answer to. Server 2012 R2 is worth the jump, despite the absolute shite interface. Server 2012 versus Server 2008 R2...
...well, the only big reasons I have for that are storage related. SMB 3 is way better than SMB 2, but this sort of presumes you are using Windows 8. Also: the iSCSI target in Server 2012 is way better than the shitemobile in 2008 R2. Oh, and DirectAccess; if you do IPv6 things then you don't want to faff about with Server 2008 R2. Oh, and the whole virtualisation-aware AD controllers. Those are damned cool.
I'd say "IIS finally stopped sucking monkey dong in Server 2012" but honestly here, who uses IIS?
So it's really a toss up. If you use iSCSI off of Windows Server then 2012 is a no-brainer. I have an article coming up on why you really should be upgrading your AD controllers to 2012. DirectAccess is a bit of a niche still, but if you use it, go 2012.
Otherwise? 2008 R2. Until you pry it from my cold, dead hands. Just like Windows 7.
Re: It's true though...
Though I've posted the link in response to another post, my attempt to reply to you apparently unlocked a torrent of "roll face around on keyboard" that eventually became a blog in it's own right. I figure I'd post the link here for you as well.
Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ...
Aye. I'm pretty sure in my article I made mention of the fact that selling the upgrades wasn't entire about the tech. As to the "making cloud computing a reality" bit, I stand by that statement 100%. In fact, I'm working on several articles that explain that in depth.
This article was aimed at providing non-techie reasons to upgrade so you can bypass management blocks. I am assuming the techies have passed judgment by now. How to get it past the boss (presuming you want the thing) is really the question.
You all also have to understand that I've seen Server 2012 R2 and Microsoft's new "Hosted Azure." (Basically a management interface that is simply a "role" in Server 2012 R2.) Hosted Azure honestly and truly does give complete blinking idiots the power to roll their own cloud; one at least as good as what Microsoft is itself running. (I am going to actually argue better than Microsoft is running, because Microsoft has one gigantic AD multi-forest. Replication throughout that forest is slowing everything in Azure (and especially Office 365!) to a grinding halt and causing all sorts of hell.)
The underlying technology between Server 2012 and Server 2012 R2 hasn't changed all that much. There are some nice improvements, but it is nothing like the generational leap that existed between Server 2008 R2 and Server 2012.
The technology underpinning Server 2012 really, truly makes cloud computing possible for the average sysadmin. You can roll your own private IaaS infrastructure, move that up to PaaS and even deploy entire SaaS application sets with comparative ease. Not on someone else's cloud, but on your own cloud. From a purely technological standpoint, I am deeply impressed by Server 2012.
That isn't to say I think it's all roses. The interface is shit. The licensing is mostly shit and they still haven't made things like VDI affordable. Hell, they come out with a great technology like DirectAccess and then restrict it to enterprise only versions while refusing to backport the client to WIndows 7!
Microsoft makes great technology. This isn't the same company that turned out Windows NT. Those who can't get over 10 or 15 year old prejudices need to grow the fuck up. There's a lot to bitch at Microsoft about, but increasingly the raw technology they put out is not it.
Indeed, this thread has caused me to mash out an opinion column on my issues with MS. For those that are capable of understanding that you can both appreciate the technology available and loathe the manner in which it provisioned you can read my further thoughts on the topic here.
Apparently Popehat mostly agrees with my take on this. Hunh. Wince when do my armchair lawyer questioning and an uberlawyer like Ken ever agree on things? This cannot be a good sign.
Re: Oh Thank god or other convenient deity
EM Pulse. You can reboot the bugger, but something tells me his particular illness will require that he be back. At least spoting the replacement accounts will be no harder with him than it was with RICHTO!
Re: "Don't build in tornado alley"
Um, I happen to live nowhere near a fault line. Tornadoes are rare. Nowhere near a coast. Nowhere near a volcano. Blizzards occur with regularity, but shockingly we're really, really good at dealing with those.
There are plenty of places to build cities. Hell, if you aren't being a complete dipshit you have the ability to view the world as something other than black and white. That means "near a volcano or inactive fault line" is a calculated risk whose odds are damned slim.
"Rebuilding New Orleans" is not a calculated risk, it's fucking lunacy. If you can't grok the difference between "a billion dollar disaster is likely to recur in the exact same spot within and human lifetime" and "our best science says the volcano we're parking our city by isn't due to erupt for another 800,000 years" then I'd say the odds you're an omega-level moron approach unity.
I'd say you don't build anywhere that there is a better than 50% chance of > 25% of your city being wiped out within 5 generations. Farm that land instead. The loss of a few farms is a hell of a lot easier to cope with than rebuilding New Orleans for the idioth time.
To be guilty of espionage, don't you have to have provided information to "the enemy"? If so, is the espionage charge against Snowden the #NSA formally admitting that "the people" are the enemy? If both of those are true, why aren't "the people" rampaging through the streets and setting shit on fire on the White House lawn?
Here are some ideas, just for fun:
1) After your coastal city gets obliterated for the umpteenth time, don't rebuild on the same spot.
2) Stop trying to "green" the desert by pumping out the last of the fossil water in the major aquifers and start moving population to locations that are far more sustainable.
3) Plant forests and other eco-buffers. They can mitigate both heatwaves and floods.
4) Plan for emergencies by building large reservoirs. These can provide water during heatwaves and absorb overflow during floods.
5) Start upgrading agricultural infrastructure to minimize water usage and maximize reclamation. Treat the runoff and pump it back underground into the aquifer.
6) For the love of $deity stop building new cities in tornado alley.
For the cost of constantly rebuilding some rich town's beach after ever blustery squall the US could be investing in real upgrades to agriculture, forestry and population migration that would not only save lives but drive down the medium and long term costs of coping with climate change.
We get it, Americans don't want to be bothered with climate change for any number of reasons. There's not much anyone can do about that. But isn't it about time they started to plan for the consequences of that choice and start making sound financial decisions about the large-scale infrastructure and population centres of their country?
They are like children in a tinderbox. Not with matches, mind you, but with a plasma torch they can't stop fingering but adamantly deny exists.
Re: Somebody told me
You smoke the bud of the flower. Specifically you are looking for the "crystals". These "crystals" are in fact trichromes; in the case of marijuana a type of resin-bearing glandular hair that is where the bulk of the THC concentration lies.
Modern marijuana plants have been selectively bred to produce larger trichromes with a higher resin load; thus moving from largely microscopic elements of the plant bud to naked-eye-visible macro structures. If you have a particularly potent strain of marijuana you will notice what appear to be "shimmering crystals" on the bud (as opposed to merely a collection of white hairs.)
This is the difference between world-renowed strains (such as "BC Hydro" here in Canada) and the stuff your daddy smoked back in the day. It should be noted that the stuff your daddy smoked was an order of magnitude (or more) less potent than what can be had cheaply and easily today.
For the real nutjobs looking to engage in chemical lobotomy you can strip the trichromes from the bud using various mechanisms and then either extract the resin or ingest/inhale/etc the trichrome-rich "crystal powder". This will get rid of a lot of the carcinogens present in other parts of the plant (particularly if you smoke your marijuana) however is roughly as stupid as drinking 190 proof Everclear straight from the bottle.
The leaves of the marijuana plant are generally only used by enthusiasts who need "filler" to mix in with the buds that they smoke. There is no value (and a lot of downsides) to smoking what is essentially hemp fibres. (Just pick up a rug and smoke it. That's basically what smoking a marijuana leaf would net you.)
There you go, your herb lore has been levelled up. These same basic principals apply to many species beyond marijuana and are of particular interest for those working with Artemisia.
More information on tricromes:
Your science has also been levelled up. You're welcome.
Re: DirectAccess - does what it says on the tin, but...
I'm pretty sure the article made clear the fact that Server 2008 R2's implementation of DirectAccess was less appealing that rotting goat cheese.
Your point about public certs is well taken, however; my experience with it bears out your warning there.
Re: World's cleverest company states the obvious
Learning what does and doesn't work for others helps me refine my approaches. After all, don't we all learn by either making mistakes ourselves or trying to modify our behaviour based on the mistakes others make? More data is always useful, especially in areas where I have little expertise.
Re: No rehash
What he said. I use Microtiks and what cumulus is up to is on a completely different scale. For that matter, I've built "roll your own" Linux based routers and switches since the before time. There's lots on the market that does this. Cumulus is the Open Compute of the networking world: it's designed for scale.
As for "real life comparisons" well, if any cumulus stuff (or higher end Microtik stuff, or both) ever wanders into my lab, I'll write a review. In the meantime, I'll keep building routers of of Supermicro boxen running CentOS with a realtime kernel. :)
Re: Does not compute
I think you might have missed the point of the article. DirectAccess protects the lightbulb in the same way your home router today defends your network: it is the single attack surface of the network.
Nobody has produced a remotely comparable consumer-level IPv6 firewall. Microsoft have the closest thing to something usable by small businesses. DirectAcces is that "gateway" device on your network; and at the moment it's the best there is.
In the internet of things you cannot guarantee that every individual device will be defensible. You need solid gateway tech. DirectAccess is far from perfect, but I see nothing else on the market that is usable for the non-linux, non-cisco nerd. DirectAccess running on a home NAS (like perhaps a newer generation version of that WD Sentinel) would be a wonderful edge device for a home network.
Re: Windows on servers, how noughties! @Eadon 05:11
Seriously haven't even had a chance to touch it yet. Your e-mail is on my "todo" list.
About three weeks ago every single one of my non-Edmonton clients started losing their shit as The Great Pre-VMworld Planning has begun. I get >100 actionable e-mails a day and end up in an average of 4hrs of phone calls. The rest of the day is scrambling to put out fires on client sites, move research and implementation projects for "must be done August 1" datacenter upgrades for clients, cranking out documents for the tech sites I write for, critiquing marketing slides/sites/videos/blogs/etc from my clients or writing said slides/sites/videos/blogs/etc.
I've never in my life been as busy as I am now. Unlike when shit hitteth fan as a generalist sysadmin who had to do everything from tech support to CIO-level planning I am not on the verge of a nervous breakdown. This tech marketing consulting thing is an absolute blast and a half! I love writing, too; so I'm doubly blessed that this is how my crazy time works out.
Sadly, the one thing that gets chopped during crunch time is personal research projects like Core Config. I don't have a comissioned article covering it and my blogs are basically planned until September. Worse; the lab itself is booked solid for at least the next two weeks! Even if I wanted to, I couldn't get time on my own test lab at this point; I have a three-man company and we're going to have to implement chargeback software so we can track lab use for given project and clients.
All of that isn't to say that I'll not be getting 'round to core config. I absolutely will. It will, however, have to wait for a quieter time. Or until I get around to buying another 4 nodes to flesh out that FatTwin of mine. Who'd have ever thought I'd flatten four of those nodes 24/7 for two solid months?
Re: Does not compute
Why do you think I like DirectAccess? It gives me that single point of defence instead of my having to be constantly paranoid that I need to update the firmware on my lightbulb to prevent some clown from using it as an attack vector behind my perimeter.
Re: Windows on servers, how noughties! @Eadon 05:11
"People often say that sort of thing about an article that says something positive about anything from any commercial entity. Are you scared that actually calling the writer a shill will get you zapped? I note you seem to have shied away from that word of late. Perhaps since a warning to that effect was posted in one of the threads?"
No, he's afraid he's look like fucking clownshoes for calling me - of all people in the universe - a shill for Microsoft. I have something of a reputation for publicly calling Microsoft out when it needs to be done. I am one of Microsoft's harshest critics whilst not being completely batshit bananas. A perusal of my posting history on The Register or on Trevorpott.com will bear that out in short order.
It is the reason I get assigned Microsoft articles. I am not afraid to tell Microsoft to eat a steaming pile of crap if they step out of line. When Microsoft does something good I say "hey guys, this is good, we should probably care!" When Microsoft does something bad I excoriate them and then spit on their remains.
I don't think you'll find many Microsoft articles of mine in which I universally praised a product or service. In fact, I think if you take a poke at this very one I pointed out where I had some squiggles about DirectAccess applicability and even mildly rebuked Microsoft for not having ported the Windows 8 client to Windows 7. (Which I find ridiculous for purely pragmatic reasons; it would have driven adoption of the technology which in turn would ultimately have led to dependence and One More Reason for customers not to switch.)
So Eadon - and any other hard-core anti-Microsoft type - can't come out and call me a Microsoft shill directly without appearing clinically insane. I am - and always have been - very open about any dealings I have had with vendors that could possibly influence my judgment or impartiality. The About Trevor page on Trevorpott.com contains a detailed disclosure list including a link to the WeBreakTech About Us page which itself contains a detailed explanation of how the sausage of technology blogging gets made.
Shills do not typically devote a third of a review to talking about an elephant in the room that they have been explicitly told the subject of the review would rather not be talked about.
If I was a shill for Microsoft I wouldn't write an article about how I'll never trust them or called their "all in bet" on the cloud by discussing the real cost of cloud storage, the general lack of trustworthy design in computing (and how that has dramatic repercussions for a cloudy world, or called for a planetary boycott of US cloud providers.
I'm tired of this "shill" business; especially as pertains to Microsoft. I think I've proven more than enough times that am 100% pure El Reg material: I bite the hand that feeds IT and I do so gleefully.
The truth is that I don't have any real-world economic or pragmatic reason to be a shill. If I piss off one company and they will never deal with me again then there are literally thousands to take that company's place. I am far more valuable to Microsoft - or anyone else - exactly as I am. Nobody trusts a butt snorkler. When Microsoft has something actually worth writing home about they'll drop it in my lap and there is credibility to me saying "this doesn't suck!"
So once and for all, to Eadon - or anyone else - who thinks I am a shill: , internet trolls.
DirectAccess was a topic that I chose to write about. I chose it because the version that came with Server 2008 R2 was a steam pile of elephant dung and I wanted a reason to carve out time on the eGeek lab to test the new version and see if it had improved. It has.
Just wait until I get to start writing about Server 2012 R2. Some of the stuff they've built into that looks awesome. If even half of those features live up to the hype...
Re: World's cleverest company states the obvious
I, for one, have only every actually done 3 interviews sitting on the employer side of the desk. I find the information about what worked (and didn't) for Google helpful. Doubly so now that I have my own company and it's future growth to worry about.
They came out of stealth without telling me. I'm crushed!
Seriously though, I was one of the people who beta tested this for GA release and ThousandEyes is blinking amazing. Some of the best software in it's class I've had the pleasure to work with. If you've the cash to play the game, you'll not be disappointed.
FINALLY. Thank $deity. This alone is worth upgrade two whole labs of Macs I have out there.
Re: Who is at fault?
I use a 10 dollar/year DNS registrar. They e-mail me at 1 year, 90 days, 30 days, 5 days, 1 day and then they hold the domain for an additional 6 months before release.
Seriously? How does LINKEDIN lose their domain?
I can't say I've always made my renewal date, but my worst was 5 hours. I at least have the excuse that domain maintenance - or really, any given task - is not my primary job. I do 80K things a day and some things slip through the cracks. LinkedIn is large enough to have a full time body just to handle DNS naming, renewal and certs.
Are you going to tell me that their enormous campus (filled with Googlebikes, because they are close enough for there to be stupid amounts of cross-polination and friends visiting friends) is still so terribly small that they can't find ONE GUY whose job it is to monitor this sort of stuff full time? I'd say pull a cook from that cafe of theirs, but actually it's a damned good cafe and that would be a crime...
More or less. The first thing that comes to mind is that the fellow saw this not as an opportunity to outright steal the money but rather as a means of gaining a temporary influx of large amounts of capital he wouldn't otherwise have access to. He probably figured he would then invest it in something with a high short term return and pay back the original monies owed; he would pocket the difference and essentially get a "free" loan from IBM/Microsoft/etc.
I'd have to think that outright theft (in which the "clients" simply never paid their bills) would get noticed and banged up immediately. The scheme I propose, however, is just as illegal but could conceivably go undetected for long enough for the guy to get away with oodles of cash. (The cash being either the interest he pocketed from the investments or the final amount he simply couldn't pay back because he sucks at investing.)
I'd be very interested in finding out the details. Sounds like a fun mystery. "How gaming the system doesn't work if you are an idiot and suck at gambling."
Re: @Evil Auditor
"And if someone did stab you, and you were sure you knew who was responsible but between you and the police you didn't have quite enough evidence for them to be charged, you'd retrospectively consider the police arresting them as a mistake?"
Part of living under the rule of law - and living free - is that you risk every day of your life being blown up by a madman, run over by a car, stabbed by someone and many other horrible things. In most cases the perpetrator will be caught. In some cases they won't. This is a risk we take in the name of fundamental liberties and it is a price entirely worth paying..
This is not a "grey area" issue. There are no "gradations of justice." Every single sentient, sapient life form is possessed of the same fundamental liberties and deserving of the exact same rights and freedoms.. You do not get to curb the freedoms of someone else because you don't like them, their politics, their past, their race, height, weight, gender or because you/the state/your mom/etc suspect them of a crime.
The man who is suspected of stabbing me has the exact same rights I do and no just society can arrest him without a damned good reason, search him without probable cause and if we are to jail him then the evidence against him must meet certain standards.
Fortunately, your entire argument is a worthless straw man. If I walked up a police office and said "that man just stabbed me" then that is probably cause to detain him pending arrest. He could then be arrested if little things like "yes, there is a stab wound on you" can be verified. Eye witness testimony is one of the least reliable forms of testimony but our laws still allow for it to be used.
It is better that 100 evil men go free than that one innocent man be imprisoned. Innocent unless proven guilty is an absolute. There is no wiggle room. There are no circumstances under which it is ethically or morally justifiable for that concept not to apply.
Re: Dear Mods,
I think "ad homenim attacks against Trevor" get through because I am perfectly capable and willing to troll asshats right back. Forehead slant? IQ of a decomposed tomato? No problem! I'll gleefully excoriate you in public for my own amusement while you keep digging deeper. Internets!
Nope, I always appear to be sanctimonious arse to idiot blowhards who are consistently wrong. It must be a terrible burden to see perfection every time you look in the mirror, most humans don't handle cognitive dissonance early so well as you can. I'm truly impressed by the way you manage to compartmentalize your thought processes. Your genome should be sequenced for science.
Re: @Trevor Pott
I confuse no such thing. The police are an extension of the state and that database can be and is used against you before you ever get to a court of law. You are arguing for effective extrajudicial findings of guilt (by default, simply by being suspected by a member of the plod) and sentencing (being added to a database that will have you treated differently from someone not in the database). You are advocating allowing members of the state to pass judgement on its citizens without the right to trial or a jury of their peers no matter how you dress it up.
Under no circumstances should police be keeping records on anyone who is not
A) Proven guilty with all matters of due process carefully observed
B) Actively under investigation
C) Have a formal complaint lodged against them where that complaint is signed by the complainant
Suspicions, gossip, mistaken arrests and so forth should never be retained. If a police office has a formal complaint to make against an individual then he should have the right to do that and he must sign his name to it. In addition, formal complaints must have an notification and appeals process allowing the individual subject to them to challenge the issue and have the complain removed from their record if they succeed.
The burden of innocence is on the state, not the individual. If you want to call me "pompous" for seeking to defend our essential liberty you go right ahead. Your pathetic attempt to deflect scrutiny of the utter lunacy of your claims with an a weak ad homenim is not going to hurt my feelings more than the idea that a silver badge holding reader of The Register would not merely exhibit apathy in the face of such actions by an overreaching state but actively defend them.
You offend me, sir. The names you choose to call me are irrelevant in the face of the callousness of your beliefs.
Re: @Trevor Pott
You certainly implied guilty unless proven innocent the instant you implied that the rare consequence of a criminal "getting away with it" was somehow an acceptable reason for retaining gossip on record with the strength of fact. The whole concept requires throwing out the presumption of innocence.
Your argument is basically "if someone was arrested there was a damned good reason for it" which is the SAME FUCKING THING as "guilty unless proven innocent." It implies that the state cannot be wrong (how Cardassian of you!) or at least that it is wrong so rarely that the odd innocent caught in the net is worth the cost to society.
You are wrong.
It is better than 100 evil men go free then that one innocent man be jailed.
The fact that you have been arrested makes you guilty of no crime. Suspicion of having committed a crime is not proof of your guilt. The state can be and often is wrong. There is no moral or ethical means by which you can justify retention of records for someone who has been not been convicted of a crime in a court of law.
You are advocating that suspicion of anything by the state means guilt by default and simultaneously that harming innocents to get the guilty is okay. I will fight against you and people who believe as you toh every ounce of my spirit, every means at my disposal every last ounce of passion and life that I possess. Fuck you sir, you are the fucking enemy.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Translation for younger folks: "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
Apathy is as damning as actively seeking to destroy the liberty of others. I will treat it as such.
Guilty unless proven innocent, sirrah?
You are the enemy.
Honest question: how does this database's so-called "due process" square with the EU "right to be forgotten"? I'll leave the question of "should such a database exist" for other threads, but I do wonder how "unproven or non-essential-to-task personally identifiable information" can be stored indefinitely against someone's will?
Would there be legal grounds under the current system of interlocking (and often overlapping) jurisdictions to appeal this to the EU human rights courts? It seems to me that the state can make a reasonable case for keeping objectively verifiable information on hand using "national security" as waving flag. Do the "get out of jail free" rules allowing such governmental drag nets really give the UK permission to create a national gossip database and then use it against citizens with no realistic grounds for appeal?
If so then I would put forth that A) that's some shitty lawmaking and B) civilized countries would probably consider you being registered in a gossip database as grounds for political asylum. Gods know I would.
I know it's a terribly nerdy, Star Trek thing to say, but...the whole system sounds more than just Orwellian, it's downright Cardassian.
I would request quite simply that the NSA make a hefty donation to both the EFF and the ACLU. That should grant them then retroactive usage rights. A small yearly donation for each year of its subsequent use should then cover the future.
Problem solved, no?
Can we please move on to a post-metro design aesthetic? Pretty please? You don't have to steamroller every single graphic that exists on a computer. What's next? Intellivision's resurgence as the ultimate in "Simple" interfaces and design principles?
Mine's the one with a flat controller containing a number pad and large silver circle in one pocket and a cartridge for discus in the other.
Re: We can reduce the number of violent nutjobs
Racism takes generations to evaporate, but it does evaporate. You need to expose people to an environment where it is considered socially unacceptable. You won't erase it from that individual, maybe not even their children, but eventually, it dies.
It is a learned behaviour, not a genetic one. So it is not inevitable. It is not incurable. We can - and will - defeat it by sticking to our principles, not giving in to fear and prejudice.
Obviously, you didn't actually understand what was written, nor why the US constitution was so important.
Yes; rights are innate. They cannot be taken away by anyone. Anyone who attempts to do so is breaking the most fundamental rules of our society; more important than law, more important than religion, more important than anything else. That is the concept of essential liberty; that you do not belong to anyone. You are not property, chattel or a subject. You do not belong to your state, your state belongs to you.
And frankly, those rights are innate. When you strip away all socialisation we are animals. Animals do not belong to one another. They are their own masters. They may fight - and lose - but they belong only to themselves.
The wolf can choose to leave the pack. It can up and walk away. Some members may follow, start their own pack. The cougar can challenge another for territory. The bird can fly where it chooses. We belong to noone but ourselves. Our rights are innate.
We choose to suborn a limited number of those rights to a centralised authority in exchange for a communal benefit. yet that centralised authority exists at our sufferance, not the other way arround. Remove the centralised authority and we are as free as the bird, the wolf or the cougar.
So they go to Dropbox, get the file, crack the encryption and pull out all my passwords. This helps me how?
The key to that encryption (the master password) still has to be something a human can remember, which means it is vulnerable to a yottabyte datacenter run by evil men.
Again, you go back to "brute forcing is a measure of the crackability of a cypher." It's proven not to be true. Rainbow tables combined with knowledge about how people choose and create password can make cracking even the best algorithm's encryption relatively easy. Will you ever get 100% of the items you are trying to crack? No. You'll you walk through 90%+ with ease.
I don't think you really truly understand what a yottabyte datacenter is. I don't think you understand the raw scale of the decryption they can do in a facility like that. Not through brute forcing, but through other, simpler means.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Please submit all your e-mails, financial, medical, and so forth history to the internet to peruse. There's no way that any of it will be:
1) Used to convict you of minor crimes (like CCTV + too many bags of garbage.)
2) Used out of context by someone who "doesn't like your attitude" to bang you up
3) Used to raise your insurance rates or deny you coverage
4) Used to blackmail you
5) Used to blackmail others
6) Used to gain competitive advantage over your employers/your company
7) Used to identify "deviant" political beliefs and target you for tax audits, police pressure or harassment
8) Used in the war on journalism
9) Used to in any other fashion to presume you are guilty unless you can prove your innocence.
That would never, ever happen because the government - all governments, really, at all levels and all of the people working for them - are professionals. Hell, shit, they're so professional they have a lid on everything!
You can't get some private in the Army stick a USB key into a classified database and start an international witchunt!
You can't get a former NSA employee working for a contractor pulling damning documents out then running away overseas to fucking China to hide while he releases the documents to a foreign news organization!
These are professionals. Your data is absolutely safe, secure, and handled by entirely impartial individuals who will never, ever, ever for any reason at any time abuse their power or allow that data to leak. Ever.
I repent and recant, your obvious wisdom and the strength of your One True Belief in the supremacy and righteousness of the almighty government watchdog has converted me.
Praise Big Brother! Praise the lord my panopticon $deity!
Re: Hello pot, this is kettle.
Obviously you aren't Canadian; Toronto isn't Canada. It's Toronto. I'm certain that some Canadian --> Canadian traffic on the bits of Canada that jut down into the states get passed through US nodes. Least cost routing and all that.
The bits of Canada that don't consider ourselves the centre of the universe, however, are too far from the border for that routing to make sense. Edmonton --> Calgary --> Vancouver and back certainly doesn't go through the US. Indeed, Vancouver all the way to Thunder Bay never has to touch a US node. Lots of fibre out west.
Similarly, the Atlantic provinces are well wired up; rarely do their packets travel outside our borders. It's just that arse-end of Ontario where it all goes a little squiggly. Oh well, the yanks can have 'em!
Re: Well said.
The FBI have a pretty full arsenal of weaponry. Everything from small arms to APCs and armed choppers. They have more than enough to put up quite a show...frankly all that is really required. "The people" don't have much more than small arms. There are a few out there breaking the laws against heavy arms, but those can be taken care of by the military-class hardware the FBI has on hand for just such emergencies.
For the rest, well...a missile detonating 100m in front of a crowd has a remarkable dispersal effect. You don't have to mow the populace down, just cow them enough to return to their homes. The FBI cheerfully have enough firepower to do exactly that. The majority of the outraged civilian populace will go right back into their hidey holes whole a few strike forces mop up the true crazies. There's no need to bring the military in at all.
Protecting the nation against domestic issues is the FBI's remit. They would be the natural first responders. I seriously doubt that anything could make the apathetic American populace as feisty as the Egyptians, but even if so I suspect that the FBI have more than a few tools to hand to deal with large crowds that the Egyptians didn't.
Hell, we now have Hum-Vee mounted crowd-disperal masers. Flash bangs by the bucket and even sonic weaponry. Do I believe the FBI would use these against the citizenry? In a heartbeat. An "us against them" mentality has been cultivated amongst US law enforcement. Would the military? Probably not; but they really aren't required to deal with American civilians.
This fantasy that some in your nation have of one day rising up against the government is just that: a fantasy. It has no basis in reality. The country isn't that unified, it isn't that brave and it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a neutron star against real-world military hardware. Hardware that not only the FBI have, but so do most American police forces, the DHS and even the ATF.
Armed rebellion will net nothing but blood and further oppression.
Re: Canadians are viewed by the world as timid and weak?
Do the Taliban have anything that can hit Canada? Probably not. But they do have things that can affect our interests on our allies. Those interests include (but are not remotely limited to) the oil pipeline. They are not going to bomb Toronto. They might just launch a few at Israel or Turkey, however.
If they really wanted to, they might be able to drive a boat into the harbour in PEI and blow it up. Not a huge amount of local damage to Canada. But the damage they could do to our allies in the region is quite significant. Along with that comes threats to our economic interests, security assets and more. Anyone that dedicated to taking you down a peg is a serious risk, even without a cloud of ICBMs to back them up.
Re: Canadian surveillance approved (today's headline Globe & Mail newspaper)
I will check in to that. If true, I expect the supreme court - if not the rest of parliament - to dismantle those programs and the associated ministers with all speed. We have before. We will again.
Re: Part of the answer is...
Your solution to Big Brother is herd immunity? Doesn't that only last until they either build rainbow tables/other decryption mechanisms big enough to deal with the problem or make encryption illegal? Before you get your corporate "it'll never happen" in a twist, realize that making encryption something you need to "get a license for" (while registering your keys with the central registrar) is entirely doable and could use existing registry systems like those used for business licences or vehicle registration.
Encryption everywhere may simply force those who wish to monitor everything to solve the encryption "problem". I believe that removing the "right" to monitor En Masse is probably a better long term approach.
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Three offers free US roaming, confirms stealth 4G rollout
- Justin Bieber BEGGED for a $200k RIM JOB – and got REJECTED