ethorad 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (440) comment rss

  • On the post: Intel Turns Off Russian Forums, Blogs & Comments In Response To Russian Blogging Law

    ethorad ( profile ), 05 Jan, 2015 @ 01:10pm

    a "data handling law" that would require all information from Russian users be kept in Russia (making it more easily accessible by Russian officials and the intelligence community)

    Sounds like the sort of laws everyone wants to introduce in the post-Snowden world. Not so much easier for local government access but a chance at making it harder for US government to access.

  • On the post: FTC Fines Online Dating Site For Using 'Fake, Computer-Generated Profiles' To Lure Guys Into Buying Premium Memberships

    ethorad ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2014 @ 10:27am

    Re:

    Why are you ashamed to admit it?

    Why is meeting people on a website any different to meeting them at a pub, club, archaeology lecture, etc

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Rocket Engines, Old And New

    ethorad ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2014 @ 07:54am

    what is it with rocket names?

    regex [A-Z][A-Z]?-[1-9]?[0-9]

  • On the post: UK Court Blocks Author From Publishing A Book About His Own Sexual Abuse, At Ex-Wife's Request

    ethorad ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2014 @ 04:35am

    Re: Is it too damned late...

    But without a famous name attached, sales of the book will be far lower.

  • On the post: New Intercept Leak Shows That Intelligence Agencies Are Ready And Willing To Perform Economic Espionage If US Tech Edge 'Slips'

    ethorad ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2014 @ 02:53pm

    Hypocrisy, thy name is USA

    The fact is that this scenario never should have been presented

    You say that, but nations often have plans of what to do in various unthinkable scenarios. As an example, the US put together various war plans in the 20s and 30s for fighting various nations - including the UK. Given the US and UK were on friendly terms it seems unconscionable to put together a plan on how to fight, but it's far better to do it while you're friendly and have time to think than after the shooting starts.

    Arguably being in a shooting war is a more serious than just losing a technological edge[citation required], but then economic espionage is also less serious than shooting. However I can see that any dropping behind is seen as the start of a slippery slope to a loss of world power so early counter-measures are needed.

    To me it's less that this scenario shouldn't have been presented, and more another example of US hypocrisy being revealed

  • On the post: Intellectual Ventures Tries To Rewrite The Script, Pretends The Plan Was Always About Making Stuff, Not Trolling

    ethorad ( profile ), 05 Sep, 2014 @ 08:43am

    Patent and move on

    I think you mean
    "Scientists who work in the IV labs must come up with ideas, test them, and then patent them and move on to the next thing"

  • On the post: Is It Torture Now? ISIS Apparently A Fan Of CIA's Waterboarding Techniques

    ethorad ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2014 @ 09:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Silence and deflection

    But isn't arguing that the goal of an action can justify the action the same as claiming the end justifies the means?

    To quote Wikipedia:
    In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the English saying, "the ends justify the means", meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable

    From your comment, with reference to US and ISIS waterboarding, you state that "The difference is in the purpose" and "those in the employ of the CIA and the drone strikes are not and did not commit brutality with the primary goal of dehumanizing and enemy and publicly attempting to strike fear in the them with their brutality"

    To me this reads that there is a difference in the evilness of waterboarding depending on the purpose - and therefore that the ends can justify the means?

  • On the post: Is It Torture Now? ISIS Apparently A Fan Of CIA's Waterboarding Techniques

    ethorad ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2014 @ 08:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Silence and deflection

    There are different degrees of wrong and evil, but the difference lies in the action not the objective.

    The end doesn't justify the means, so whether you are doing it under the belief that it will help protect your nation, or to strike terror in your enemies doesn't matter. If the action is the same it is just as good or evil no matter why you are doing it.

    To quote Christopher Dawson:
    As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy

    Note that I'm not saying that the US is as evil as ISIS - ISIS has done many things more evil than waterboarding. However the US cannot claim that their use of torture was acceptable because they did it for noble reasons. After all I'm sure ISIS believe they are torturing people for a noble reason.

  • On the post: Is It Torture Now? ISIS Apparently A Fan Of CIA's Waterboarding Techniques

    ethorad ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2014 @ 07:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Silence and deflection

    Plus it's stretching the definition of "long gone" when a lot of the key players are still active, having just changed jobs. It's not like they're hiding in exile somewhere, or died decades ago.

  • On the post: Is It Torture Now? ISIS Apparently A Fan Of CIA's Waterboarding Techniques

    ethorad ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2014 @ 04:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Legal Inquisition ?

    in a ruthlessly efficient manner?

  • On the post: Is It Torture Now? ISIS Apparently A Fan Of CIA's Waterboarding Techniques

    ethorad ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2014 @ 04:40am

    Re: Re: Silence and deflection

    The first step to fixing the problem, is to admit there is a problem. And so far the USG has yet to make that step.

    Until they do, the rest of the world will keep organising an intervention.

  • On the post: University of Oregon Slaps Student With Five Conduct Charges Over Four Words

    ethorad ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2014 @ 02:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Wow

    Are universities in the US private institutions? I thought there was some government link otherwise there's no first amendment issues.

    AFAIK the first amendment only protects you from the government stifling your speech. Private institutions are legally able to restrict your speech on their property

  • On the post: Thomson Reuters Thinks Not Responding To Their Email Means You've Freely Licensed All Your Content

    ethorad ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2014 @ 03:35am

    Re: Ignorant (or asshole) lawyers do the same thing...

    Did you just transmit some of the contents of their email to unauthorised persons?

    Oops!

  • On the post: Thomson Reuters Thinks Not Responding To Their Email Means You've Freely Licensed All Your Content

    ethorad ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2014 @ 03:30am

    Re: Re:

    Except that they wouldn't be delaying publishing someone else's material by 14 days.

    They're going to wait 14 days and then start republishing things as soon as they are posted.

  • On the post: EU Lawyers Confirm 'General And Blanket Data Retention Is No Longer Possible' In European Union

    ethorad ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2014 @ 08:50am

    Re: Re: ELI5?

    Ah ok, think I have it.

    The Data Retention Directive 2006/24 (DRD) said that member states have to store everyone's data

    However Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU says that "Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications".

    In June the DRD was found to be invalid due to the conflict with Article 7, so member states are busy constructing ways to still do mass surveillance without breaching Article 7.

    These latest documents however suggest that (one of) the key points why the DRD breached Article 7 was it didn't require a link between the person being surveilled and a threat to security, or a particular place/time.

    Therefore in order to avoid breaching Article 7, any new data retention measures have to be targeted in some way.

    Therefore, no blanket surveillance of everyone.

    Yes?

    I'm sure our "security" services are busy working out loopholes. GCHQ could define "the world" as a specified geographic area but that would let those terrorists on the ISS go uncaught - and they sound like they are linked to the ISIS guys in Iraq. Instead GCHQ could take a leaf from copyright and define a limited time to be forever less a day.

  • On the post: EU Lawyers Confirm 'General And Blanket Data Retention Is No Longer Possible' In European Union

    ethorad ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2014 @ 12:44am

    ELI5?

    I'm not a lawyer so I don't really understand that para 59 quote above. I had a look at the link but the longer document is just as confusing.

    To me, para 59 says that the data retention directive doesn't require a link between the data and threat to public security, and then gives a couple of examples in particular.

    Why does that suggest blanket collection is prohibited? Saying a link isn't required doesn't seem to close off anything. Saying a link must or must not be present would start to close off options, but just saying a link could be there but doesn't need to be isn't helpful?

    Can someone explain like I'm 5?

  • On the post: Latest Abuse: Feds Reading Emails Between Prisoners And Their Lawyers

    ethorad ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2014 @ 12:46pm

    Re:

    Or if they really want to communicate privately with their lawyers they can wait until they are released then go round to the lawyer's offices.

    Easy.

  • On the post: Google Alerts Press About Right To Be Forgotten Removals, Putting Those Stories Back In The News

    ethorad ( profile ), 03 Jul, 2014 @ 07:45am

    Re: Yet

    So it's:

    1. Remove link from search engine
    2. Remove article from publication's website
    3. ???
    4. PROFIT!

  • On the post: Google Alerts Press About Right To Be Forgotten Removals, Putting Those Stories Back In The News

    ethorad ( profile ), 03 Jul, 2014 @ 01:18am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Someone could set up a search engine to do the US and EU searches for you. I think there was a version of google image search someone had done which would run the same search twice - once with safe filter on, and once with it off - and then just return the pictures which were filtered.

    Instead of a porn-mode image search, how about a Streisand-mode web search which just returns the stuff people want deleted?

  • On the post: Digital First Media Lawyer Orders Blogger To Take Down And 'Return' Memo Listing Names Of Staff Members To Be Fired

    ethorad ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2014 @ 08:38am

    Re: We need to email our copies to Mr. Barlow right away

    Don't forget to include your copies of the earlier emails from your sent items folder!

    Talk about asking for a DOS attack ...

Next >>