hozelda 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (1029) comment rss

  • On the post: White House Says Its Rules Limiting Drone Attacks To Avoid Civilians Don't Apply In Syria

    hozelda ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2014 @ 01:21am

    White House was clear and honest (based on sources I found and quote above)

    >> It's not much of a rule when you can exempt it based on... deciding to exempt it.

    What? In 2013, they explicitly did not include areas of active hostilities.

    > The “near certainty” standard was intended to apply “only when we take direct action ‘outside areas of active hostilities,’ as we noted at the time,” Hayden said in an email. “That description — outside areas of active hostilities — simply does not fit what we are seeing on the ground in Iraq and Syria right now.”

    Look at the title of this "fact sheet" posted by the white house last year:

    "Fact Sheet: U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities"

    And it specifically says as well: "In particular, lethal force will be used outside areas of active hostilities only when the following preconditions are met: "

    Is there any evidence that they ever stated they would abide by those rules in a place like Syria under the current conditions?

    Is it not clear that droning a person in a relatively peaceful environment is different then dealing with tanks and artillery in a war zone and other assets that may include people nearby?

    We need a Press factchecker.

  • On the post: Feds: Even Though We've Been Ordered To Reveal Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT Act, We're Not Going To Do That

    hozelda ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2014 @ 12:51am

    So we have a Constitutional crisis?

    From the quotes above, the Court seems to have ordered only that steps be taken. Nowhere does it say to actually release the document.

    SCOTUS is the final arbiter. Lower courts have their decisions overturned frequently enough. What happened with that? Is this a Constitutional crisis moment? Nothing suggests that it is anything remotely like that.

  • On the post: Obama Administration Learns: If You Redefine Every Word In The Dictionary, You Can Get Away With Just About Anything

    hozelda ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2014 @ 10:59pm

    Comparative analysis? Does anyone on the planet not play with words?

    This article could have been more clear that "civilian" re-definition existed before Obama got there.

    This article has a tone that this administration plays with words in ways that are worse than earlier administrations or even than the other admin since 9/11.

    As for ground forces, Obama seems to be in a pickle because of statements he has made before and the realities of needing people on the ground to help Iraqi ground forces. The potential "I did not have sex/mission accomplished/read my lips" follow-up justification appears to be that those special op people are advisors that can shoot a gun if attacked first and are there to tell Iraqis how to paint targets to blow up and other important combat info.

  • On the post: Tom Wheeler Revising His Net Neutrality Plans… But Not Actually Fixing Them

    hozelda ( profile ), 14 May, 2014 @ 08:16pm

    From the Speakers desk.. (apparently fast lanes are good for jobs)

    House GOP Leaders: Proposed ?Net Neutrality? Regulations Would Jeopardize Innovation & Job Creation

    House Republican leaders sent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler a letter today urging the commission to drop consideration of new federal ?net neutrality? regulations that would undermine a free and open Internet and hurt our economy at the same time.

  • On the post: Court Says WiFi Isn't Radio Because It's Not Audio; Therefore WiFi Sniffing Can Be Wiretapping

    hozelda ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2013 @ 12:21pm

    Re:

    I believe the worry has to do with the disclosure of private data vs the disclosure of a song intended clearly for public consumption.

    In other words, it's not the technology but the expectations for that medium.

    This is what I think the judges are responding to. (I haven't read the rulings).

  • On the post: Court Says WiFi Isn't Radio Because It's Not Audio; Therefore WiFi Sniffing Can Be Wiretapping

    hozelda ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2013 @ 12:13pm

    Re: Re:

    > Unsecured WiFi is like offering a connection to anyone. It's like leaving the contents of your house in a park with a "Free, take me" sign.

    For people who (a) are not tech savvy and (b) generally expect privacy, they see it instead as leaving your house unlocked and then having people come inside just because it's trivial to open an unlocked door.

    Most people who do not realize they have to use a lock, expect privacy and aren't voluntarily putting things outside with a "take me" sign.

  • On the post: James Clapper Pretends It Was Just A Good Idea To Suddenly Declassify FISA Documents; Doesn't Mention EFF Lawsuit Or Snowden

    hozelda ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2013 @ 11:52am

    Re:

    > In the real world Clapper or Alexander would be fired by now for gross incompetence and likely arrested for treason.

    I disagree. In the private sector many people who have served their useful time are moved around rather than discarded. [I recently heard someone talk about the Peter Principle.] There are many mistakes made, especially when dealing with lots of data. Programmers make loads of mistakes downplayed as "bugs". If you wear the hat of a government official and deal with lots of data, you stand potentially at some point to violate the constitutional rights of a great many people ("millions") even while being average in intent and skill for you position.

    More importantly than whether a wholesale meaningless violation of rights occurred is if harm took place and how much.

  • On the post: Do You Live In The Constitution-Free Zone Of The US?

    hozelda ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2013 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Note it does not say anything about any TYPES of arms, amounts, or anything else.

    Note it does n-o-t say,

    "the right of the people to keep and bear any arms without limitations shall not be infringed?"

    You simply assumed that in the absence of any modifiers that the default was one extreme case.

  • On the post: Do You Live In The Constitution-Free Zone Of The US?

    hozelda ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2013 @ 11:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > And besides, the first part of the second amendment is just an attempt explain WHY it is there, not a place a limitation on it.

    The first part adds context and context tends to matter.

    Consider an alternative:

    "Guaranteeing one's ability to hunt currently being a popular desire, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    or

    "For the purposes of hunting, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    These imply different shades of gray.

  • On the post: Do You Live In The Constitution-Free Zone Of The US?

    hozelda ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2013 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There is only one interpretation of that phrase

    If there is only one, then I think the best interpretation is not yours but is something else closer to what the Supreme Court has decided in general.

    Let's consider a parallel statement:

    "The right of the people to eat food shall not be infringed."

    I think most people would consider the above, absent further context, to mean A below rather than B.

    A: "The right of the people to eat some food in some way and in some quantity shall not be infringed."

    B: "The right of the people to eat any food however they want and in whatever quantity they want shall not be infringed."

    I think you picked the less likely meaning, and I am fairly sure you are incorrect in insisting that only one meaning is possible and that it would be your meaning.

    Here is another variation.

    If I say that I can carry weights. Most people would not think I am saying that I can carry any weight imaginable but instead that there are some weights out there that I can carry.

    Absent a modifier, the most natural meaning of a phrase is frequently not an extreme case but a gray area ("some") case. That is how we use English daily. If you modify, you are being extra specific. If you don't, you are leaving things more up in the air or are using a short-cut to mean something whose meaning is discerned from further context.

    You will notice that contracts and regulations tend to be very wordy and precise, laws less so, and a Constitution the least precise of all or at least to allow the most room for maneuverability. That is not a requirement but a practicality. So while a Constitutional right might be to "bear arms" a law might mention that felons, civilians, the mentally disabled, young people, etc, have limitations.

    This is what we find in society. Your absolutist interpretation is for frustrated commenting online.

  • On the post: NIST's Ridiculous Non-Response Response To Revelation That NSA Controlled Crypto Standards Process

    hozelda ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2013 @ 09:09am

    Re: Re: Statutes like this bug me...

    > I feel like I'm hearing that the sky is falling just because the NSA is involved somehow.

    To be fair, the article's motivation is anger at the NSA for trying to add back doors and then removing any benefit of the doubt that the NIST is working with a different agenda (than the NSA) more in line with what a traditional standards body might desire.

  • On the post: NIST's Ridiculous Non-Response Response To Revelation That NSA Controlled Crypto Standards Process

    hozelda ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2013 @ 09:01am

    Re: Re:

    That's in the eye of the beholder. Many nations consider the UN necessary to keep other nations (and their own) in check.

    The "US" under the Articles of Confederation was rather weak by their own admission, but that weakness at the UN is apparently an asset given how diverse is each member.

    Everyone loves government when it comes to protecting their own personal set of "these are the best" laws, but hates it when it compromises in order to serve a larger constituency.

  • On the post: NIST's Ridiculous Non-Response Response To Revelation That NSA Controlled Crypto Standards Process

    hozelda ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2013 @ 08:52am

    Re: Statutes like this bug me...

    Does it say to follow the NSA's wishes or show preference?

    The question I have is not who is the editor of any given standard (which btw can be ignored by the private sector in many cases) but would the NIST allow the spec to be changed when the community shows weaknesses. Does anyone know of a case where they have not done that?

    If people find flaws, point them out and the spec can change. If the spec is complex, don't use it. There is already the parallel stds from places like Internet RFCs (IETF).

    If the government wants their own minimal level of stds they feel comfortable with, eg, for government contracts, what is the beef? Again, is there actual evidence of NIST or NSA pushing a purposely weak std onto everyone by law and not backing from it? Because if people want to have laws that allow everyone to have super encryption and that would not be available without a law change, then that can be addressed in the US form of government.

    I feel like I'm hearing that the sky is falling just because the NSA is involved somehow.

  • On the post: More NSA Spying Fallout: Groklaw Shutting Down

    hozelda ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2013 @ 01:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NSA - obama

    In another thread, a quick calculation (without much benefit of the doubt) yielded 1 error query in every 10,000 by NSA query analysts. This includes typos.

    What is your error rate at work? And does the buck stop with you?

    BTW, what would you do today if you were President? Hope you are willing to take responsibility for terrorist attacks that happen afterward. And I'm sure the intelligence community would just love you. It's not an easy job or easy set of decisions. Weighted against what at this point is mostly the fear of big brother watching are lives. You have to tell these people's family that you could have called 1 in 10000 error rate OK and kept the program but you chose to defy Congress and try to cripple it (or beg Congress to kill it) because you didn't want a single email from a random stranger to be accidentally read my a stranger trying to do a job.

    Of course, while it is easy to say, I wonder if anyone who says these programs are useless in stopping terrorism and haven't saved a single life actually believe that or would close them down if they were in a high target position (like a government Congressman or the President)?

    Anyway, let me know if you would try to close down these 2 programs (meta data and prism) after you have thought about it hopefully for at least 20 minutes or so to consider the consequences all around you. .. And then we can sit here and blame Obama for 5 years of failures.

    [According to Keith Alexander http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeeQdoJWAHA 27:20 Obama visited the NSA in 2009 asking them what they were doing and what more could they do to ensure compliance. Congress intelligence committees have found no willful violation of the law or intent of the law. Yes, mistakes happen (see the error rate above). .. But go ahead as President and sabotage the program because you are skeptical of big government.]

  • On the post: US Still Can't Figure Out What Snowden Took; What Happened To Those Perfect 'Audits'?

    hozelda ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2013 @ 11:22am

    Re: Re:

    I just saw his blackhat speech and the 100% auditability refers to the 2 query programs (meta data and prism), with one case being in the context of the NetFlow network tracking tool.

  • On the post: US Still Can't Figure Out What Snowden Took; What Happened To Those Perfect 'Audits'?

    hozelda ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2013 @ 11:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Know what's even scarier?

    BTW, I just saw Keith Alexander's Black Hat speech on youtube.

    100% auditability was used several times. It did not refer to system administration.

    It was used in the context of NetFlow. It was used in the context of 2 query programs. The speech was about those 2 programs, a meta data program and prism.

    For example, a little over 20 minutes into his speech [27:15 in the vid I saw]: "So on this program [Prism/FAA 702 authority], 100% auditability on every query that we make, and that is overseen by our inspector general, our general counsel."

    Or the example, in the context of NetFlow [15:30]: "you know that we can audit the actions of our people. 100% in this case."

    Even the quote Mike provided qualifies the 100% auditability with "these programmes," and there were no other programs mentioned or detailed in the speech (at least to any degree, iirc).

    So, there is no claim at all iirc that every command taken by a sys admin is audited. Every instance I remember refers to NetFlow or to either of the 2 query programs (meta-data and Prism).

    I am sure the NSA has a lot more auditing, but the 100% was used in a very limited scope.

  • On the post: US Still Can't Figure Out What Snowden Took; What Happened To Those Perfect 'Audits'?

    hozelda ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2013 @ 09:13am

    Re:

    Aside from the fact "audibility" was a joke, I don't think the NSA claimed they have 100% auditability (every action, all the time, from anyone, etc) in all of their systems. Who made that claim, btw? That doesn't sound like an engineering conclusion.

  • On the post: US Still Can't Figure Out What Snowden Took; What Happened To Those Perfect 'Audits'?

    hozelda ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2013 @ 09:08am

    Re: Hubris exemplified

    Feel free to go live elsewhere where you are more comfortable. Let me know what country you picked.

  • On the post: US Still Can't Figure Out What Snowden Took; What Happened To Those Perfect 'Audits'?

    hozelda ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2013 @ 09:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Know what's even scarier?

    Any person allowed administrator privileges (and the clearance and trust that implies) has potentially a lot of power.

    Other governments can know more through espionage (or putting a gun to "Snowden"'s head or watching him very closely) than perhaps through hacking.

    Finally, while I know the NSA helped build the SE Linux infrastructure, you still have to use it and use it wisely (ie, by giving as little access as possible to anyone who shouldn't have access). I just read that the NSA had fallen asleep at the wheel keeping data sufficiently compartmentalized. Snowden had access to things he didn't need to have access to, I'm guessing.

    Trust has to exist to some extent. The idea is that people who violate that trust will have the weight of the US gov to deal with later if they are caught.

  • On the post: US Still Can't Figure Out What Snowden Took; What Happened To Those Perfect 'Audits'?

    hozelda ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2013 @ 08:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Both government and terrorists can help you out too, depending on who you are.

    That said, if you really want, you can go live in a land where terrorists have a greater reach than government.

Next >>