there is very clear intend observable , even with unarmed civilian eyes , in U.S strategic policies that need real offensive approaches toward information circulation , data processing and digital content medium . one can learn a lot about these policies by reading publicly available documents in U.S federal websites under "Open Government Initiative" title . when the goal and "intentions" of decision makers of a , rather hostile , government like U.S is to eliminate real adversaries to the values or benefits of a rather small group of people ( something around 250 companies who participate in 2 or 3 U.S foreign affair think tanks who "run" the waves at D.C ) there is going to be a clear need for development of offensive technologies , which eventually , gets wider by different entities and gets more wider among community - resulting in indirect injection of finance , opportunities , relations and "motives" to get armed and go after offense by anyone who appreciate his own values or benefits more than "others" .
while i do not seek any pleasure from getting sucked into these "leaks" games but i am able to pastebin huge data from , lets say for example , Chatham House a none-U.S "element of power" based out of London showing how "the intentions" of powerful and wealthy yet "shadowy" figures plays role in building strategies for a government , a nation-state , to result hunger in offensive technologies . obviously , Cyber Space is not the only affected domain . there was a world before digital content experienced and the intention of the ones who own or pwned a resourceful situation always made the difference on how instructive or distractive is that portion of that piece of time/place . basically , i am asserting that talking nice and being politically correct is not changing the fact that offensive intentions , result of selfishness - shortsightedness - corruptions , of the ones who have the power or chance to make the policies is "the" deterministic factor . i am not denying there are other factors obviously . "so" ( i am posting on dd so there must be "so" in beginning or at the punch line , right? ) it might be healthier for , say , American activists to take a look at their own/pwned government's public strategy documents first and then ask the basic question . is it really possible to have bills that realistically change the fast growing offensive technologies in "information business" when there are fundamental goals , determined people and huge mostly-dark beneficiaries of offense in their society's leaders? hats off to exploit sellers and missile engineers - anywhere dirty shoes fly to corrupt fat blood suckers - everywhere On سهشنبه, مرداد ۳۱, ۱۳۹۱ at ۲۰:۱۵, trevor wrote: > Hey folks, > > Below is EFF's response to the Daily Dave thread entitled "Neal Stephenson, > the EFF, and Exploit Sales." > > In March, in the midst of a heated public about cybersecurity, EFF published > an article entitled "Zero-Day Exploit Sales Should be a Key Point in the > Cybersecurity Debate." Unfortunately, it has been mischaracterized and > distorted on this list and other public forums, so we want to take the > opportunity to clarify what we said, and importantly, what we didn't say. > > The confusion seems to stem from this paragraph: > > If the U.S. government is serious about securing the Internet, any bill, > > directive, or policy related to cybersecurity should work toward ensuring > > that vulnerabilities are fixed, and explicitly disallow any clandestine > > operations within the government that do not further this goal. > > Unfortunately, if these exploits are being bought by governments for > > offensive purposes, then there is pressure to selectively harden sensitive > > targets while keeping the attack secret from everyone else, leaving > > technology—and its users—vulnerable to attack. > Based on this, we’ve been accused of calling for regulation of coders’ free > speech rights. But that is not what this paragraph (or the rest of the blog > post) says. This paragraph is about what the U.S. government should do, and > not about coders at all. > > Indeed, EFF established that code is speech in the 1990s in a case called > Bernstein v. Department of Justice, winning the right to export cryptography > (https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-29). We continue to defend > these rights to this day. Any legislation or other government action that > would restrict coders from writing code (and offering it to the government) > should be presumptively unconstitutional, and rightly so. > > The blog post was written while the House of Representatives was debating > CISPA, a dangerous bill that would carve a huge hole in existing privacy law > while not actually making the Internet any safer: > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/cybersecurity-bill-faq-disturbing-privacy-dangers-cispa-and-how-you-stop-it > > > The basic point we were trying to make is that Congress should look at the > government's own actions and consider what it could do to improve security > before passing sweeping new legislation to scale back everyone else's rights. > That includes the government’s own decisions to keep information from > companies and the public that could help secure networks, systems, and > critical data -- as part of a hidden offensive strategy or otherwise. > > The main cybersecurity bills are no longer moving forward, but the debate > about policies to address information security will doubtless continue. In > these discussions, EFF will continue to fight for the users, for the > researchers, for robust privacy and security technology, and against > governmental restrictions on the freedom to code. While you may not agree > with everything we do, we thank you for the opportunity to participate in the > discussions on this forum. > > -- Trevor Timm Activist Electronic Frontier Foundation [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]) 415.436.9333 ext. 104 www.eff.org > (http://www.eff.org) 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Defending > your civil liberties in the digital world. > _______________________________________________ > Dailydave mailing list > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave _______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list [email protected] https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
