|
U-Know! Forum » Calling Grufty Jim (& the rest of you 2) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 15:57
|
||
|
This may be another urban myth since its from memory and I again don't have the time to verify it, but I seem to remember a recent law that allows the security services to demand a key and threaten the person they have coerced from warning anyone. RIP? Given that, it wouldn't be reported as unsecure since anyone who was able to be coerced would be unlikely to deliberately risk listing a key as untrusted. I don't mean this as criticism of PGP, just a contribution to your safe practices, an innocuous prearranged warning would seem prudent. (Something else you haven't mentioned is encrypting your hard disk. No point in encrypting a message when a copy of it is sitting unencrypted in a temp file or cache). "Pretty much any half-decent tech-head could unearth such a trojan on a machine and remove it" I am an MCSE with 17 years experience in various operating systems and I wouldn't trust my own abilities to identify and remove trojans. Judging from personal experience and recent arrests, too many people are too confident of their own abilities in this. I would even suggest that the NSA build backdoors into every operating system. Without going into this in too much depth, I would suggest that a clean install on the system partition of a multi partition machine using say Ghost is far from overkill. Keep your system partition small enough to fit on a CD ( 2.5 Gb fits with high compression). I know activists who see this as 'underkill' and I trust those activists more for their skepticism. It only takes 10 minutes once its set up, and is definitely good practice. A faraday cage around your screen would be sufficent until they can read thoughts. (I'm working on a Faraday cage geodesic dome, as a chillout place for overstimulated hippies).
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 16:01
|
||
|
"(remember, even a bog-standard firewall or real-time virus monitor will prevent such software being installed remotely)." Antivirus software doesn't detect trojans. Anti- trojan software is trojan specific. Software firewalls - even really expensive ones, but especially Macafee or Zonealarm only keep out script kiddies and robots.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 16:02
|
||
What do you think of the Firefighters strike Jim ?
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 16:05
|
||
|
You acknowledge that your plans have a high potential for resulting in "a few innocent deaths". No I didn't. I never classed the potential as high, I classed it as 'low'.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 16:41
|
||
|
Low or high. Makes no odds (though we differ on the risks involved... i believe that paralysing the UKs fuel supply for a week, say, will have a high risk of avoidable human death). Risking the lives of other people in an action you acknowledge has no chance of achieving the stated goal of saving a greater number of lives is indefensible. It ceases to be about preventing Iraqi deaths, and becomes a case of punishing the government for their murderous war. I am 100% behind you if you're claiming the government need to be resisted, punished and "attacked" (heavy parenthesis to indicate a specific use of the word... meaning "in a non-violent sense"). I just don't see how you can justify punishing Blair and the rest of the establishment by threatening the lives of the vulnerable. You would have some moral force (though not my - stubbornly non-violent - active support) if you proposed something that threatened the lives of those carrying out the war. But killing the weak to punish the powerful?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 17:27
|
||
|
It's a weird one and no mistake. The fact is, YAIP, i can't tell you what i think about the Firefighters strike... except to openly admit that i don't have a consistent stance on the issue. On the one hand, every working person has the right to organise and withhold their labour in protest at unreasonable pay and conditions. Nobody (except some NuLabour SpinDoctors earning 50K a year without running into burning buildings every day) can seriously deny that firefighters are insultingly underpaid right now and have every right to come out on strike as a result. These men and women are the closest thing our culture comes to true heroes (a point that was made _ad nauseaum_ post-Sept 11th, but no less true because of that). Every day they go to work knowing that they may have to do one of the most frightening things i can think of... walk into a fiery, smoke-filled inferno not knowing whether you're going to walk out... or whether the place is going to collapse around you. They risk burning to death in order to rescue strangers! That's their fooking job!!! And they clearly don't do it for the pay. Because we all know - thanks to the threat of strikes - just how much these heroes do actually earn... and i can't imagine anyone who wasn't horrified when they heard. So now, what with Tony Blair and all the other capitalist fat-cats awarding themsleves and their boards of directors / cabinet absurd pay rises, the firefighters have had enough. Damn straight! And then there's the other side of me that protests. These people are public servants, it points out. Right now they are being treated shoddily and appallingly by the government - and we; the public; have an obligation to address that. However, by withholding their unique skills (and unique bravery), they are risking many lives. I do not dispute their right to do this. I even support them - yes, even unto strike action. But i do it with a heavy heart, and plenty of inner conflict (though far less, i suspect than is felt by the firefighters themselves). It pisses me off that it's come to this - that we treat our heroes so badly, while the corrupt and powerful earn shameful salaries. That said, i don't believe that the firefighters strike is analogous to your proposed fuel blockade (though i don't think you were making that claim).
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 17:31
|
||
|
"Low or high. Makes no odds " Probablities make no odds ? Odd. You presumably condemn the recent anti war march in London, which could easily have delayed ambulances and cost lives. You presumably believe the Fire services shouldn't be allowed to strike, to avoid punishing the vunerable and risking innocent lives. You presumably never get in a car in case you knock someone down. All actions have possible consequences but in action isn't an option.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 17:33
|
||
|
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/23057.html http://www.vnunet.com/News/1127792 http://duncan.gn.apc.org/893871217-encrypt.html http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9807/27/security.idg/ "no vendor hip to the NSA's power will even start building products without checking in with Fort Meade first." http://www.iptvreports.mcmail.com/ic2kreport.htm An overview of the communications intelligence.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 17:39
|
||
|
"That said, i don't believe that the firefighters strike is analogous to your proposed fuel blockade (though i don't think you were making that claim)." Sorry to sink further in your estimation, but I was making that claim. Only in terms of the avoidable threat to vunerable lives. Unsurprisingly, I wholeheartedly support the FireFighters strike without reservations.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 17:51
|
||
|
Mad. Every firefighter i've seen interviewed expressed serious reservations. You have none whatsoever? I support their right to risk lives by withholding their labour. You appear to be implying you're glad they're doing it (or are you 100% neutral... no reservations, no exultations - straight down the middle?) And it's not analogous to the fuel blockade. The firefighters are potentially risking lives by withholding a service that they are not obligated to perform (cos that'd be slavery, or serfdom at the least). The dangers imposed upon society by their action is a byproduct of their right to withhold labour. A proposed fuel blockade, however is not the exercise of a legal / moral right (unless you feel you have a legal / moral right to endanger unwitting people to make your personal political point). And the dangers imposed upon society are not a byproduct; but rather the entire point.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
