BoringCode

Yes, there is more to life than the cult of Snowden. No reason to run around with our heads cut off just because the man gave an interview.

WSJ will show the full article if your referer header is set to twitter.com. You can do a search on Google like so: "https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-faces-fbi-probe-overprogra... site:twitter.com"

https://twitter.com/binarybits/status/906145108277559296

Don't bother, this poster is just trolling and moving the goal posts is one method to do so. You could bring up how spirited and competitive the World Baseball Classic was. How it featured teams from all over the world and was watched and understood by fans all over the world.

Or how there are multiple professional leagues on multiple continents. Each with their own followings and eccentricities.

You could also point out that baseball is in fact back in the Olympics. Precisely because it now has an international following.

But none of that matters. Because this poster is in a race to prove how they are more euro-centric than Americans are USA-centric.

Baseball is played around the world. This comment is slightly insulting and pointless.

Misleading comment.

7.08 (a) 2 specifically applies to the scenario like in this comment:

Rule 7.08(a) Comment: Any runner after reaching first base who leaves the base path heading for his dugout or his position believing that there is no further play, may be declared out if the umpire judges the act of the runner to be considered abandoning his efforts to run the bases. Even though an out is called, the ball remains in play in regard to any other runner.

Essentially the runner has to obviously abandon his attempt to reach the next base. In the scenario outlined in the article the runner is still advancing to the next base, trying to draw a throw. According to your interpretation, any runner taking a lead without specifically advancing should be out, which is incorrect.

When it comes to judgement calls like this it all comes down to the umpire. Many umpires have noted[1] that this is a legal play. And it was ruled as such in the article's example. Calling it "misleading reporting" is a smear on a very well written story about an edge case that isn't clear cut.

(I will note that is very easy for the offense to execute incorrectly and for the umpires to get it wrong. For example: https://youtu.be/WnI4KlUNf38)

[1] http://www.austinumpires.org/skunkplay.html

I am concurring with you. The point I'm making is that it's a matter of resources and trust, not literal "open source" that matters.

If I trust an organization to put the resources towards properly auditing their software, that's often far more important then whether or not I can personally do an audit. The majority of people and organizations do not have the time or technical skills to properly evaluate software. Whether the software they use is open-source won't ultimately matter.

The "many eyes" argument often falls apart because most of the time there simply aren't that many eyes dedicated to a project. What is the practical difference between Microsoft hiring 100 people to perform security audits and an open-source project that has 100 volunteers? Resources and trust. If you trust the open-source project to dedicate resources to security, and their software fits in your threat model, then use it. Or the inverse, if you don't trust MS and their software doesn't fit: avoid it. The vast majority of the time open-source vs closed-source should not be the main differentiator, but rather a smaller element of an informed decision.

Many open-source projects simply don't have the resources to adequately test their products or provide support. Contrast this with a large company which has the resources and the willpower to provide support for their software. Often the best of both worlds is a large company/organization that dedicates its resources to an open-source product, but that's not always the case.

But this issue is never as black and white as "open-source is more secure." There are many other factors that go into the security of a product beyond its source code being readable. Deciding which factors matter largely depends upon your unique threat model.

A better strategy would be to determine which ISP serves Congress, and pay them for the data of IPs originating from Congress.

Except that would be illegal (and no ISP is going to sell raw data, even if they could)

Universal 2nd Factor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_2nd_Factor

Not conclusively, no.

I'm not sure speculation changes the central premise of the question. Assume that the document was up to date with the latest techniques. Would you still that consider it to be a document worth leaking for the public good?

edit: I will acknowledge that the age of the document does change its impact. But 2013 is pretty recent.

I suspected I'd see a variation of this answer in this thread. While on some level it makes sense for some cases (the information is so benign that it doesn't matter if it is leaked), in this case I don't think it quite adds up.

First, while much of the information might be common-sense, it might not be to potential adversaries and I see no reason to provide further aide.

Second, revealing documents like this helps prove what FBI isn't doing. When trying to plan an effective counter to surveillance, it can be just as important to know what isn't be tracked as well as what is. Again, I don't see a public good here.

I simply don't think there is an overriding good that outweighs potential downsides (even if small). Revealing this document does not show moral or legal problems. All it does is fulfill curiosity. Which isn't a good reason for leaking information related to national security.

If your analogy was true, there would be a stronger moral argument for revealing such information. But it isn't. I'm talking about this very specific case.

Honest question: is this the type of material that should be leaked? Is there an overriding good to revealing this document to the public?

I lean towards no, but I'd be interested in discussion on this.

ZType is also really fun (and it runs in the browser)

http://zty.pe/

(If you’re wondering what data the NSA collects, its own site[1] offers a list and this statement: “The standard operating procedure for the Domestic Surveillance Directorate is to ‘collect all available information from all available sources all the time, every time, always.’”)

The linked site is a PARODY. There is no such thing as the Domestic Surveillance Directorate, that would be the FBI. How the author of this article fell for that, I don't know.

[1] https://nsa.gov1.info/data/

It's not just dead, they've yet to perform untethered flight on any of their prototypes. The Terrafugia Transition is an example of a far more practical form of "flying car"

As addressed elsewhere, the linked document is not supposed to be a proof for Russian involvement.

The latter part of my comment was meant to provide some context as to why that type of information hasn't been publicly released. If the IC reveals sources and methods, Russia or similar actors will change their behaviors in order to avoid detection/attribution.

I'm addressing the poor thesis that "the IC has been (deliberately) wrong before, therefore they can't be trusted without an undefined amount of evidence."

The points you raise are good and worth discussing, but unrelated to what I was talking about.

You clearly don't understand the intelligence process if this is your critique.

First, the people making the DNC hack report are not the same as the analysts who worked on Iraq. The IC is not a monolith.

Second, the Bush White House saw the intelligence they wanted to see.

Third, burning sources and methods is a very real concern in intelligence gathering. That reality can't be ignored no matter how much you want information to be free and open.

You don't have to trust the IC. In fact you probably shouldn't take what they say at face value. But there are very good reasons for why they operate the way they do.

That's fine, you should be skeptical.

But do you really expect a nation state to say "hey, this is exactly how were are damaged. Please exploit us." That's just the nature of the intelligence business, it's hard to provide proof of damage without causing further harm.

Due to the nature of this type of damage you likely won't hear any evidence for many years.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the above poster was being sarcastic.

It is coming to Android early next year though.

Maybe, but those can't be deployed on a company's network.

milquetoast

I actually had to look that up. Thanks for a new word that I can throw around. I don't think a personal attack on the author helps your argument, but that's your prerogative.

Also, thanks for clarifying your position. I disagree with you on the wholesale dismantling of intelligence agencies (they serve a purpose), but I think we can agree that oversight is needed and necessary perhaps regardless of the exact means.

Addendum: very disappointed that I got downvoted for giving my on-topic opinion. I thought HN was better than this. Many of you gave your thoughts in the comments, which is great! Debate is far preferable to abusing the voting system.

I was summarizing the article, that's why I chose that language because it reflected my interpretation of what the author was saying.

But I think a more balanced approach is necessary. The leaker should have at least some knowledge of what they are providing to journalists. This was somewhat addressed in the article because the author seemed to feel that Snowden was opening himself up to attack precisely because he was so indiscriminate. He put a target on his back from not just the US government but also foreign governments who want the information he has.

Targeted leaking can be justified. Indiscriminately stealing information can not be. I think that's a better summary of the article. Now, there are a lot of subtleties to this, especially in regards to what Snowden actually did. But I don't think it's fair to boil down the article's premise to "hating on hackers."

Your response actually agrees with the author. I don't think the author would deny that leaking can be and is a necessary part of a free society.

"If any corporation is corrupt, all others must be too"