9 captures
07 Jun 2013 - 31 Jan 2024
May JUN Jul
09
2012 2013 2014
success
fail

About this capture

COLLECTED BY

Organization: Alexa Crawls

Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.

Collection: Alexa Crawls

Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
TIMESTAMPS

The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20130609043454/http://lwn.net:80/Articles/548993/
 
LWN.net Logo

Log in now

Create an account

Subscribe to LWN

Return to the Security page

Little things that matter in language design

LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 6, 2013

Power-aware scheduling meets a line in the sand

Trusting upstream

LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 31, 2013

Security quotes of the week

Chase is committed to making your banking experience enjoyable, trouble-free, and, above all, safe. Which is why you should strike your computer with 20 to 25 forceful blows from a pipe wrench as soon as you reach international waters, toss the plastic and metal shards into the sea, and then immediately sink the ship you’re on. And then, once you dive to the sea floor, grab the scattered computer pieces, and shove them all inside living clams, you’ll be able to rest easy knowing you’re banking smarter and safer.
The Onion (hat tip to Don Marti)

Patent trolls know this and as a result, they sue companies in droves and make settlement demands designed to maximize their financial take while making it cheaper and less painful to settle than to devote the resources necessary to defeat their claims. The current system lets them do so even with claims that are unlikely to prevail on the merits. That is because, whether win lose or draw, the rules effectively insulate trolls from negative consequences except perhaps a lower return than expected from any given company in any given case. They can sue on tenuous claims and still come out ahead. And so the broken system with its attendant leverage allows trolls to extract billions in blackmail from U.S. companies and, in the final analysis, consumers.
Barnes & Noble pulls no punches (by way of Groklaw)

In the aftermath of the Boston bombings -- cameras were everywhere there -- which while horrendous and tragic, killed and injured fewer people than just a few days of "routine" gun violence here in the USA, we're hearing the predictable calls for vastly expanded government-operated video surveillance networks, even though virtually every study shows that while these systems may be useful in solving crimes after the fact, they are of little to no use in preventing crime or terrorism in the first place. This has proven true even in cities like London, where there's a camera focused on pretty much every individual pimple on each Londoner's face.

In some cities, like New York, the surveillance-industrial complex has its fangs deeply into government for the big bucks. It's there we heard the Police Commissioner -- just hours ago, really -- claim that "privacy is off the table."

Lauren Weinstein
(Log in to post comments)

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 2, 2013 10:45 UTC (Thu) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]

> there's a camera focused on pretty much every individual pimple on each Londoner's face.

And yet still strangely the sky hasn't fallen.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 2, 2013 13:35 UTC (Thu) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

"Past performance is not a predictor of future results."

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 2, 2013 14:26 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

No no, past performance is not a _guarantee_ of future results.

It's actually a remarkably good _predictor_ in many cases. If it wasn't then Huffman coding would be ineffective as a compression technique.

Almost twenty years ago when I bought my first mobile telephone the fearmongers were telling people that although they couldn't see any health effects in the human population _yet_ in ten years we'd be looking at a catastrophic cancer rate and regretting our incautious adoption of this (to them) clearly hazardous technology.

And they're still parroting roughly the same line. Sure, the fearmongers say, all our _past_ predictions were wrong, but why don't you believe us _now_ ?

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 2, 2013 23:31 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]

The problem with building the surveillance network is that somewhere down the line the bad guy gets in charge and he uses the system in the way everyone was afraid he would. You Londoners should have heeded Orwell's warning, all you've done is set a precedent that's being used throughout the world to build similar surveillance networks. Networks that have been proven not to prevent crime and in most cases don't even help solve it, negating the entire reason it was built and is maintained. (I'd point out that the photo that identified the Boston bombers was a cell phone camera shot, not surveillance cameras)

The "oh it's not been used maliciously so it probably won't" isn't IMO a safe assumption, because someone somewhere sometime in the future, is going to abuse that system and it's going to hurt people. It's not worth it.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 2, 2013 23:36 UTC (Thu) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

Oh, come on: unintended consequences aren't intentional. Besides: our leaders are busy assuring us that nothing bad will happen, and back up those assurances not only with numbers, but also the % symbol.

So it's all justified, and stuff.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 3, 2013 9:43 UTC (Fri) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

Your argument can be generalised as: the problem with government policy X is that a bad guy might run the government, right, yes, we're familiar with this argument. But it's completely neutral. You can use this argument to support or oppose any policy whatsoever, simply putting it in the hands of this imaginary Hollywood-style villain where everything is a weapon. Votes for women? Monstrous. Decimalisation? Oppressive. And so on.

So it makes a lot more sense for us to consider how policies will affect the real world, where political leaders are flawed human beings not supervillains bent on mayhem. If I had to list the major threats our society faces I don't think "bad guys using London CCTV cameras to set up a tyrannical dictatorship" will come close to the top thousand. It's certainly lower on my list than "huge meteorite strikes central London" for example, in advance of which we have done (and plan to do) precisely nothing whatsoever.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 3, 2013 9:58 UTC (Fri) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link]

Only that the last surveillance state that ended badly isn't even remotely as long ago as the last major meteor strike.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 4, 2013 18:28 UTC (Sat) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]

>Your argument can be generalised as: the problem with government policy X is that a bad guy might run the government, right, yes, we're familiar with this argument. But it's completely neutral. You can use this argument to support or oppose any policy whatsoever, simply putting it in the hands of this imaginary Hollywood-style villain where everything is a weapon.

You can use this argument to oppose any policy which gives a government more power that it has now. And it doesn't assume a Hollywood-style villain but a human-style animal, who will have a natural tendency to become corrupted by any power.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 4, 2013 18:51 UTC (Sat) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

I'll submit that the slippery slope argument is valid in light of the demonstrable, cancerous growth of bureaucracy in our day.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 4, 2013 19:54 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

Yeah, just imagine the GoodOleTime when you could just dump your toxic waste into a nearby river. None of these pesky environment regulations!

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 14, 2013 13:26 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

>I'll submit that the slippery slope argument is valid in light of the demonstrable, cancerous growth of bureaucracy in our day.

That doesn't make any sense at all - how can that be your argument in favour of disallowing private individuals or organisations from placing cameras in public places?

I dislike the surveillance society as much as the next guy, but the only way you can prevent it would be to add *extra* bureaucracy prohibiting people from exercising what many people (not unreasonably) consider to be their right.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 3, 2013 11:26 UTC (Fri) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

As to Orwell's warning, the technology was out of the bag years ago, and hasn't turned out that way at all. That's because it's our cameras, not their cameras. The centralised surveillance network linking all the information to some Big Brother control centre hasn't really happened, and with the recent discarding by Parliament of Theresa May's Communications Data Bill probably isn't going to here in the UK.

As to the camera assisted law enforcements against the nut who put a cat in a wheelie bin round the corner from me (news of which went global a couple of years ago), and more seriously the Boston bombers, these were the results of private cams and distributed cooperation of citizens in charge of our own cams, as opposed to the kind of centralised surveillance network envisaged by Orwell.

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 4, 2013 9:20 UTC (Sat) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]

> The centralised surveillance network linking all the information to some Big Brother control centre hasn't really happened

...yet.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/05/the_publicp...

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 3, 2013 9:33 UTC (Fri) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]

Actually, the surveillance situation looks more like with the Challenger disaster than with the radiation effects of cellular phones. The space shuttle had many successful launches before so it was *obvious* that it was safe, wasn't it?

Security quotes of the week

Posted May 2, 2013 16:42 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

No, but its an expensive Sword of Damocles hanging over everyones head. Right now cameras are mostly connected to stand alone DVRs but eventually they will be networked with automation, probably based on the mature systems which monitor for IED placement in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The thing that's different about cameras, than some other security technologies, is that the policy and consequences are not publicly obvious so most people will pass by the cameras without any ill effect, as long as they are sufficiently conventional. I'd rather not see "signature strikes" being fed from data that we've provided by building this large expensive surveillance network that operates without sufficient public oversight.

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds