testing

[Greg Newby]

The list seems quiet...
  Cpunks List 

Re: testing

[Mirimir]

On 10/07/2016 06:57 AM, Greg Newby wrote:
> The list seems quiet...
>   Cpunks List 

Angst fatigue?

Re: testing

[xorcist]

> On 10/07/2016 06:57 AM, Greg Newby wrote:
>> The list seems quiet...
>>   Cpunks List 
>
> Angst fatigue?
>

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

Re: testing

[xorcist]

> Allen Ginsberg  (1926-1997)

There was a young man that said, Though
It seems that I know, that I know.
But what I would like to see,
Is the I that knows Me,
When I know that I know, that I know

Re: testing

[John Newman]

Test received !


John

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Greg Newby  wrote:
> 
> The list seems quiet...
>   Cpunks List 
> 
> 

Re: testing

[John Newman]

On Oct 7, 2016, at 11:01 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

>> Allen Ginsberg  (1926-1997)
> 
> There was a young man that said, Though
> It seems that I know, that I know.
> But what I would like to see,
> Is the I that knows Me,
> When I know that I know, that I know
> 

"Freedom is something that dies unless its used."

"You can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a drug, 
especially when its waving a razor sharp hunting knife in your eye."

-HST


John

Re: The arrest of NSA contractor Harold Thomas Martin III

[John Newman]

I wonder if he was selling any of this code? Are there any allegations that he 
profited from the shit he exfiltrated..?  Or that he disseminated any of it in 
any way?

And how did they bust him?


John

> On Oct 6, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Razer  wrote:
> 
> Unlike  Edward Snowden, who brought us information about the NSA's
> spying operations, Harold Thomas Martin III had been squirreling away
> Malware code, apparently for years (no word on whether he was author or
> contributor and was just saving snippets for other projects, which would
> still undoubtedly be illegal). Some of the code is apparently the kind
> that make it look like others are attacking a system, like Erections
> 2016 cyberops... botnets.
> 
> He was ARRESTED IN SECRET OVER A MONTH AGO.
> 
> They say he was being grilled to figure out his 'psychological
> motivations'... but perhaps they found their perfect opportunity to
> blame the election hacking on Russia and they didn't want some pissant
> contractor blowing their cyber and PR operation if the public found out
> that code was 'in the wild' and anyone could have been doing it.
> 
> Rr

New York City: Facials Now Compulsory For All Residents Leaving Their Home

[grarpamp]

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/10/06/2142257/new-york-to-test-facial-recognition-cameras-at-crossing-points
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puWovVz7CfU
http://www.vocativ.com/365430/ny-facial-recognition-cameras-bridges-tunnels/

In a 35-minute speech detailing a landmark $100 billion investment
into state infrastructure, largely focused on New York City and Long
Island, Governor Andrew Cuomo made a number of promises that would
thrill New Yorkers, like the promise of a renovated Penn Station,
called Penn-Farley, a direct train from there to LaGuardia Airport,
and the completion of the long-awaited Second Avenue Line. Oh, and
facial recognition cameras around the city, he said: "At each
crossing, and at structurally sensitive points on bridges and tunnels,
advanced cameras and sensors will be installed to read license plates
and test emerging facial recognition software and equipment." "We're
going to be using this in Penn-Farley and we also want to be testing
it in bridges and crossings system," he added. On the matter of facial
recognition cameras, Cuomo was shy on details. It's unclear how many
cameras will be deployed, which agencies will have access to them,
what defines a crossing, how citizens' photos will be stored, and what
photo databases will be used to compare against the faces of the
millions of people who drive into the city. In his speech, Cuomo
referenced the cameras as necessary for New York to adapt to 21st
century security threats. "In this age of terrorist activity and lone
wolves, if you look at points of vulnerability you'll go to our
tunnels and to our bridges. So really they have to be reimagined for a
new reality," he said.

Sim Theory

[grarpamp]

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/10/06/1352205/tech-billionaires-are-asking-scientists-for-help-to-break-humans-out-of-computer-simulation
http://www.businessinsider.com/tech-billionaires-want-to-break-humans-out-of-a-computer-simulation-2016-10
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny
https://games.slashdot.org/story/16/06/03/0049258/elon-musk-one-in-billions-chance-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation

Tech Billionaires Are Asking Scientists For Help To Break Humans Out
of Computer Simulation

Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a
billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of
the simulation. The New Yorker recently did a profile about Y
Combinator's Sam Altman. In the story, Altman discusses his theories
about being controlled by technology and delves into the simulation
theory. From an article on The New Yorker: Many people in Silicon
Valley have become obsessed with the simulation hypothesis, the
argument that what we experience as reality is in fact fabricated in a
computer; two tech billionaires have gone so far as to secretly engage
scientists to work on breaking us out of the simulation. Business
Insider adds: The piece doesn't give any clue as to who those two
billionaires are -- although it's easy to hazard a few guesses at who
they might be, like Musk himself or Altman's friend Peter Thiel -- but
it's fascinating to see how seriously people are taking this theory.
According to Musk, it's the most popular topic of conversation right
now.Earlier this year, at Code Conference, Elon Musk said there's "one
in billions" chance we're not living in a computer simulation.

Signal on the Desktop, Plays FBI Subpoena

[grarpamp]

https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/10/04/2144202/encryption-app-signal-wins-fight-against-fbi-subpoena-and-gag-order
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/signal-subpoena-privacy-gag-order/
https://apnews.com/2bed090d3ec042cab375278b636ff5e5/US-subpoena-tests-privacy-promise-of-encrypted-messaging-app
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/technology/subpoenas-and-gag-orders-show-government-overreach-tech-companies-argue.html
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/open_whisper_documents_0.pdf

Signal, widely considered the gold standard of encrypted messaging
apps, was put to the test earlier this year when a FBI subpoena and
gag order that demanded a wide range of information on two users
resulted in a federal grand jury investigation in Virginia. The makers
of Signal, Open Whisper Systems, profoundly disappointed law
enforcement. The app collects as little data as possible and therefore
was unable to hand anything useful over to agents. "That's not because
Signal chose not to provide logs of information," ACLU lawyer Brett
Kaufman told the Associated Press. "It's just that it couldn't." "The
Signal service was designed to minimize the data we retain," Moxie
Marlinspike, the founder of Open Whisper Systems, told the New York
Times. The subpoena came with a yearlong gag order that was
successfully challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Signal's creators challenged the gag order as unconstitutional,
"because it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government
interest." The challenge was successful. In addition to being
popularly considered the best consumer encrypted messaging app
available, Signal's technology is used by Facebook for Secret
Conversations, WhatsApp for encrypted messages, and Google's Allo.
Confronted with the subpoena, Marlinspike went to the ACLU for legal
counsel. The ACLU responded with a letter saying that even though
Signal did not have data the FBI sought, it still strenuously objected
(PDF) to the fact the FBI wanted so much information.

Tox.Chat: A New Kind Of Instant Messaging

[grarpamp]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12657891
https://tox.chat/

Whether it's corporations or governments, digital surveillance today
is widespread. Tox is easy-to-use software that connects you with
friends and family without anyone else listening in. While other
big-name services require you to pay for features, Tox is completely
free and comes without advertising — forever.

Instant messaging

Chat instantly across the globe with Tox's secure messages.

Voice

Keep in touch with friends and family using Tox's completely free and
encrypted voice calls.

Video

Catch up face to face, over Tox's secure video calls.

Screen sharing

Share your desktop with your friends with Tox's screen sharing.

File sharing

Trade files, with no artificial limits or caps.

Groups

Chat, call, and share video and files with the whole gang in Tox's group chats.

What makes Tox different?

Tox is made by the people who use it — people fed up with the existing
options that spy on us, track us, censor us, and keep us from
innovating.
There are no corporate interests, and no hidden agendas. Just the
simplicity and functionality that are set free when people truly want
to connect.

Encrypted

Everything you do with Tox is encrypted using open-source libraries.
The only people who can see your conversations are the people you're
talking with.

Distributed

Tox has no central servers that can be raided, shut down, or forced to
turn over data — the network is made up of its users. Say goodbye to
server outages!

Free

Tox is free software. That's free as in freedom, as well as in price.
This means Tox is yours — to use, modify, and share — because Tox is
developed by and for the users.

Re: testing

[Mirimir]

On 10/07/2016 07:56 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>> On 10/07/2016 06:57 AM, Greg Newby wrote:
>>> The list seems quiet...
>>>   Cpunks List 
>>
>> Angst fatigue?
>>
> 
> And in the naked light I saw
> Ten thousand people, maybe more
> People talking without speaking
> People hearing without listening
> People writing songs that voices never share
> And no one dared
> Disturb the sound of silence

"It’s cold, but somewhere there’s got to be a way off this fucking
beach." Takeshi Kovacs, in _Broken Angels_ by Richard Morgan

Re: Tox.Chat: A New Kind Of Instant Messaging

[Razer]

I've had qtox on my machine for some time now.

Note that the interface is a little obscure about how to hook up with
others. Click your username at the top and you'll see a string that
looks like:

E611C7673C4C9C84C7F53BD8A2DF46C3131CB260E5758392B6B22FE18072C57569661208F92E

AFA Signal, desktop, they want to run it in Chrome only. For some reason
that makes me nervous... Maybe if they develop a stand-alone like
Telegram...

Rr

On 10/07/2016 10:07 AM, grarpamp wrote:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12657891
> https://tox.chat/
> 
> Whether it's corporations or governments, digital surveillance today
> is widespread. Tox is easy-to-use software that connects you with
> friends and family without anyone else listening in. While other
> big-name services require you to pay for features, Tox is completely
> free and comes without advertising — forever.
> 
> Instant messaging
> 
> Chat instantly across the globe with Tox's secure messages.
> 
> Voice
> 
> Keep in touch with friends and family using Tox's completely free and
> encrypted voice calls.
> 
> Video
> 
> Catch up face to face, over Tox's secure video calls.
> 
> Screen sharing
> 
> Share your desktop with your friends with Tox's screen sharing.
> 
> File sharing
> 
> Trade files, with no artificial limits or caps.
> 
> Groups
> 
> Chat, call, and share video and files with the whole gang in Tox's group 
> chats.
> 
> What makes Tox different?
> 
> Tox is made by the people who use it — people fed up with the existing
> options that spy on us, track us, censor us, and keep us from
> innovating.
> There are no corporate interests, and no hidden agendas. Just the
> simplicity and functionality that are set free when people truly want
> to connect.
> 
> Encrypted
> 
> Everything you do with Tox is encrypted using open-source libraries.
> The only people who can see your conversations are the people you're
> talking with.
> 
> Distributed
> 
> Tox has no central servers that can be raided, shut down, or forced to
> turn over data — the network is made up of its users. Say goodbye to
> server outages!
> 
> Free
> 
> Tox is free software. That's free as in freedom, as well as in price.
> This means Tox is yours — to use, modify, and share — because Tox is
> developed by and for the users.
> 

Re: Tox.Chat: A New Kind Of Instant Messaging

[Kevin Gallagher]

qTox has been pretty good for me, and I got a lot of friends to move
over to it. The calls are absolute garbage, and every now and then there
will be issues with people disconnecting seemingly at random, but
all-in-all it is decent to use.

The only thing that worries me is that key verification is based on the
fact that you have an entire public key as a user's ID. This lacks
usability for non-technical users, especially since very few people
actually exchange IDs over a secure third channel.


On 10/07/2016 01:19 PM, Razer wrote:
> I've had qtox on my machine for some time now.
>
> Note that the interface is a little obscure about how to hook up with
> others. Click your username at the top and you'll see a string that
> looks like:
>
> E611C7673C4C9C84C7F53BD8A2DF46C3131CB260E5758392B6B22FE18072C57569661208F92E
>
> AFA Signal, desktop, they want to run it in Chrome only. For some reason
> that makes me nervous... Maybe if they develop a stand-alone like
> Telegram...
>
> Rr
>
> On 10/07/2016 10:07 AM, grarpamp wrote:
>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12657891
>> https://tox.chat/
>>
>> Whether it's corporations or governments, digital surveillance today
>> is widespread. Tox is easy-to-use software that connects you with
>> friends and family without anyone else listening in. While other
>> big-name services require you to pay for features, Tox is completely
>> free and comes without advertising — forever.
>>
>> Instant messaging
>>
>> Chat instantly across the globe with Tox's secure messages.
>>
>> Voice
>>
>> Keep in touch with friends and family using Tox's completely free and
>> encrypted voice calls.
>>
>> Video
>>
>> Catch up face to face, over Tox's secure video calls.
>>
>> Screen sharing
>>
>> Share your desktop with your friends with Tox's screen sharing.
>>
>> File sharing
>>
>> Trade files, with no artificial limits or caps.
>>
>> Groups
>>
>> Chat, call, and share video and files with the whole gang in Tox's group 
>> chats.
>>
>> What makes Tox different?
>>
>> Tox is made by the people who use it — people fed up with the existing
>> options that spy on us, track us, censor us, and keep us from
>> innovating.
>> There are no corporate interests, and no hidden agendas. Just the
>> simplicity and functionality that are set free when people truly want
>> to connect.
>>
>> Encrypted
>>
>> Everything you do with Tox is encrypted using open-source libraries.
>> The only people who can see your conversations are the people you're
>> talking with.
>>
>> Distributed
>>
>> Tox has no central servers that can be raided, shut down, or forced to
>> turn over data — the network is made up of its users. Say goodbye to
>> server outages!
>>
>> Free
>>
>> Tox is free software. That's free as in freedom, as well as in price.
>> This means Tox is yours — to use, modify, and share — because Tox is
>> developed by and for the users.
>>

-- 
Kevin Gallagher
PhD Candidate, Department of Computer Science
New York University Tandon School of Engineering
2 MetroTech Center, 10th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (757) 202-8961
Email: kevin.gallag...@nyu.edu
Key Fingerprint: D02B 25CB 0F7D E276 06C3  BF08 53E4 C50F 8247 4861




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Sim Theory

[Georgi Guninski]

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:49:35PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a
> billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of
> the simulation. ...

lol, so billionaires are asking to root the virtual machine, get root on
the host OS and possibly own the operator too? (this scales) lol

Re: Sim Theory

[John Newman]

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Georgi Guninski  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:49:35PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
>> Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a
>> billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of
>> the simulation. ...
> 
> lol, so billionaires are asking to root the virtual machine, get root on
> the host OS and possibly own the operator too? (this scales) lol

And then what ?  It's not like there is any chance we would actually be 
breaking out of the sim into earth prime... if we are in a sim, it's sims all 
the way down

I figure it's best to ignore the implications of the simulation hypothesis. 
There's nothing to be done about it.


John 

Re: Signal on the Desktop, Plays FBI Subpoena

[juan]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 12:56:42 -0400
grarpamp  wrote:

> https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop
> 

> 
> Signal, widely considered the gold standard of encrypted messaging
> apps, was put to the test earlier this year when a FBI subpoena and
> gag order that demanded a wide range of information on two users
> resulted in a federal grand jury investigation in Virginia. The makers
> of Signal, Open Whisper Systems, profoundly disappointed law
> enforcement. The app collects as little data as possible


maybe the 'app' collects as little as possible (dishonest hand
waving), but the marlinspke's servers collect as much
'metadata' as they can, no? 



> available, Signal's technology is used by Facebook for Secret
> Conversations, WhatsApp for encrypted messages, and Google's Allo.

LMAO at the 'anti-establishment' marlinspkike...



> Confronted with the subpoena, Marlinspike went to the ACLU for legal
> counsel. The ACLU responded with a letter saying that even though
> Signal did not have data the FBI sought, it still strenuously objected
> (PDF) to the fact the FBI wanted so much information.

Re: Sim Theory

[Mirimir]

On 10/07/2016 12:35 PM, John Newman wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Georgi Guninski  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:49:35PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
>>> Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a
>>> billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of
>>> the simulation. ...
>>
>> lol, so billionaires are asking to root the virtual machine, get root on
>> the host OS and possibly own the operator too? (this scales) lol
> 
> And then what ?  It's not like there is any chance we would actually be 
> breaking out of the sim into earth prime... if we are in a sim, it's sims all 
> the way down
> 
> I figure it's best to ignore the implications of the simulation hypothesis. 
> There's nothing to be done about it.

So hey, I'm rereading Egan's _Diaspora_. Synchronicity :) It's
macrospheres all the way down.

Re: Sim Theory

[xorcist]

>
> I figure it's best to ignore the implications of the simulation
> hypothesis. There's nothing to be done about it.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I find I quite agree, but for perhaps
different reasons, because I don't find the implications to be all that
difficult.

Whether reality is material and we're threatened by cosmic rays, meteors,
or the vagaries of war-mongering, hairless apes with nukes, or whether
reality is immaterial, and we're at the mercy of a simulation, or some
unknowable God, the result is fundamentally the same when you follow it
out: There is no safe place in the universe. There is nothing to grab hold
of. The more we look for safety, the more danger we will find. The more we
try to grab hold of things, the more they will slip away. Death will
overtake every living thing, eventually.

And so, from this, it doesn't matter the slightest to me if reality is a
simulation, or not. For that matter, it doesn't matter in the slightest if
a meteor hits. Or if humanity blows itself up with nukes. I'd prefer my
other humans decided to play better games than Monopoly, Scrabble, or
Chess,
but it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

We're HERE. NOW - attending a party with some 7 billion or so other
people. So, party, and try to make it a FUN party.

Re: Sim Theory

[John Newman]

On Oct 7, 2016, at 3:29 PM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

>> 
>> I figure it's best to ignore the implications of the simulation
>> hypothesis. There's nothing to be done about it.
> 
> If I'm understanding you correctly, I find I quite agree, but for perhaps
> different reasons, because I don't find the implications to be all that
> difficult.
> 
> Whether reality is material and we're threatened by cosmic rays, meteors,
> or the vagaries of war-mongering, hairless apes with nukes, or whether
> reality is immaterial, and we're at the mercy of a simulation, or some
> unknowable God, the result is fundamentally the same when you follow it
> out: There is no safe place in the universe. There is nothing to grab hold
> of. The more we look for safety, the more danger we will find. The more we
> try to grab hold of things, the more they will slip away. Death will
> overtake every living thing, eventually.
> 
> And so, from this, it doesn't matter the slightest to me if reality is a
> simulation, or not. For that matter, it doesn't matter in the slightest if
> a meteor hits. Or if humanity blows itself up with nukes. I'd prefer my
> other humans decided to play better games than Monopoly, Scrabble, or
> Chess,
> but it doesn't really matter one way or the other.
> 
> We're HERE. NOW - attending a party with some 7 billion or so other
> people. So, party, and try to make it a FUN party.


Yes you've stated the case pretty well :)

I guess I could restate my original case a little bit: it's best to ignore the 
implications of the sim theory, because there really are NO implications, 
assuming a true high fidelity sim.  And we haven't observed anything to argue 
for flaws in the sim.. (oh Christ, I was just reminded of the matrix movies.. 
*shudder*)

So, yeah, party on Garth ;)


John

Re: Sim Theory

[juan]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 12:49:35 -0400
grarpamp  wrote:




> Many people in Silicon
> Valley have become obsessed with the simulation hypothesis, 


the only thing the criminal predators in silicon valley care is
how to rape the biggest number of people in the most efficient
way. They believe in that kind of 'simulation' nonsense as much
as they believe in jesus-shit or the FSM.




> the
> argument that what we experience as reality is in fact fabricated in a
> computer; two tech billionaires have gone so far as to secretly engage
> scientists to work on breaking us out of the simulation. Business
> Insider adds: The piece doesn't give any clue as to who those two
> billionaires are -- although it's easy to hazard a few guesses at who
> they might be, like Musk himself or Altman's friend Peter Thiel -- but
> it's fascinating to see how seriously people are taking this theory.
> According to Musk, it's the most popular topic of conversation right
> now.Earlier this year, at Code Conference, Elon Musk said there's "one
> in billions" chance we're not living in a computer simulation.

Re: Sim Theory

[rooty]

r u the famous mEtaSploit hacker script righter - ge0rgi



 Original Message 
On Oct 7, 2016, 11:15 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:49:35PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a
> billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of
> the simulation. ...

lol, so billionaires are asking to root the virtual machine, get root on
the host OS and possibly own the operator too? (this scales) lol

Re: Sim Theory

[John Newman]

R u the famous "rooty tooty fresh and fruity" ??


John

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:46 PM, rooty  wrote:
> 
> r u the famous mEtaSploit hacker script righter - ge0rgi
> 
> 
> 
>  Original Message 
> On Oct 7, 2016, 11:15 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:49:35PM -0400, grarpamp wrote: 
> > Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a 
> > billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of 
> > the simulation. ... 
> 
> lol, so billionaires are asking to root the virtual machine, get root on 
> the host OS and possibly own the operator too? (this scales) lol 

Re: Sim Theory

[ben0wNed]

4 real saw that name on hacker m0dUle -



 Original Message 
On Oct 7, 2016, 3:01 PM, John Newman wrote:


R u the famous "rooty tooty fresh and fruity" ??


John

On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:46 PM, rooty < arpsp...@protonmail.com> wrote:


r u the famous mEtaSploit hacker script righter - ge0rgi



 Original Message 
On Oct 7, 2016, 11:15 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:49:35PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a
> billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of
> the simulation. ...

lol, so billionaires are asking to root the virtual machine, get root on
the host OS and possibly own the operator too? (this scales) lol

Re: The Democratization Of Censorship

[grarpamp]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/we-need-to-save-the-internet-from-the-internet-of-things

Irony of govt specified devices in your home, all to combat aforesaid
censorship?
Mandated by: Bruce Schneier

"IoT will remain insecure unless government steps in and fixes the
problem. When we have market failures, government is the only
solution. The government could impose security regulations on IoT
manufacturers, forcing them to make their devices secure even though
their customers don't care. They could impose liabilities on
manufacturers, allowing people like Brian Krebs to sue them. Any of
these would raise the cost of insecurity and give companies incentives
to spend money making their devices secure.
Of course, this would only be a domestic solution to an international
problem. The internet is global, and attackers can just as easily
build a botnet out of IoT devices from Asia as from the United States.
Long term, we need to build an internet that is resilient against
attacks like this. "

Re: The Democratization Of Censorship

[juan]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 18:21:46 -0400
grarpamp  wrote:

> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/we-need-to-save-the-internet-from-the-internet-of-things
> 
> Irony of govt specified devices in your home, all to combat aforesaid
> censorship?
> Mandated by: Bruce Schneier
> 
> "IoT will remain insecure unless government steps in and fixes the
> problem. When we have market failures, government is the only
> solution.


I think I already pointed out what kind of despicable piece of
shit schneier is. No wonder he is, among other things, a high
ranking mafioso of the tor mafia. 

The funny thing is how such a motherfucking scumbag like
schneier is 'respected' in  'circles' of people allegedly
'worried' about privacy and government threats. 




> The government could impose security regulations on IoT
> manufacturers, forcing them to make their devices secure even though
> their customers don't care. They could impose liabilities on
> manufacturers, allowing people like Brian Krebs to sue them. Any of
> these would raise the cost of insecurity and give companies incentives
> to spend money making their devices secure.
> Of course, this would only be a domestic solution to an international
> problem. 


The definitive solution is for the US military to murder
everyone of course. 




> The internet is global, and attackers can just as easily
> build a botnet out of IoT devices from Asia as from the United States.
> Long term, we need to build an internet that is resilient against
> attacks like this. "

[NotTheOnion] Want a career with zero chances of going jobless? CyberSecurity.

[Razer]

You know what they say about the market. When everyone is getting in,
it's time to bail...


WASHINGTON - Want a career with zero chances of going jobless?

Try the booming field of cybersecurity. Companies can’t hire fast
enough. In the United States, companies report 209,000 cybersecurity
jobs that are in need of filling.

It’ll only get worse. By 2019, according to the Cybersecurity Jobs
Report, the workforce shortfall may reach 1.5 million. Globally, the
shortage could hit 6 million, it added.

“The internet is growing faster than the growth of people to protect
it,” said Michael Kaiser, chief executive of the National Cyber Security
Alliance.

It is a problem with the full attention of the White House, which in
July called for “immediate and broad-sweeping actions to address the
growing workforce shortage and establish a pipeline of well-qualified
cybersecurity talent.”

A dramatic rise in cybercrime has put government in competition with
private companies for hiring cybersecurity experts. Private companies
recoil at the possibility of hackers stealing their proprietary
information, holding their data for ransom or plundering their servers
of the personal information of clients.

The shortage in job candidates is not an easy or quick problem to
address, experts said.

“It takes a long time to develop the instincts to be an effective
cybersecurity engineer. You can’t just come out of college and know what
to do,” said David Foote, a tech industry researcher and co-founder of
Foote Partners of Vero Beach, Florida.

“The threat landscape changes all the time, and that’s hard to train
for,” Kaiser added.

Foote said both government and private industry faced shortages: “In the
short term, it’s not looking good. There are so many employers who are
way behind in staffing.”

Efforts to poach cybersecurity experts occur at a blistering pace.

Some 46 percent of working cybersecurity professionals said they
received solicitations for other jobs “at least once per week,”
according to the State of Cyber Security Professional Careers, a survey
released last month jointly by the Enterprise Strategy Group and
Information Systems Security Association.

“Turnover in the cybersecurity ranks could represent an existential risk
to organizations in lower-paying industries like academia, health care,
the public sector and retail,” the survey said.

In the federal government’s push to expand cybersecurity training, it
has targeted all levels of education, including $125 million in National
Science Foundation grants to primary and secondary schools. It has also
designated nearly 200 colleges and universities as National Centers of
Academic Excellence in Cyber Defense.

Many universities are gearing up programs to meet the surge in demand.

“We will start teaching the first group of students in two weeks,” said
Alan M. Usas, the director of the new executive master’s in
cybersecurity program at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.
“Interest has been extremely high.”

But luring younger students into cybersecurity can be a tough sell.

“People who are graduating from college are looking for the next killer
app or to create the next startup,” said Katrina Timlin, an associate
fellow in the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

Cybersecurity has little of the cachet of other areas of information
technology, such as machine learning, and cybersecurity experts aren’t
even always loved at their own companies. Their departments are not
revenue generators. And their constant efforts to penetrate systems can
raise hackles.

“They have to have that nonconformist edge where they can pick apart a
problem. That kind of personality pushes some people’s buttons,” Timlin
said.

As they look for flaws in existing networks and systems, cybersecurity
experts can find themselves at loggerheads with technology engineers who
built the systems, she said.

Cybersecurity encompasses far more than just technology issues.

“Most every company that has an internet presence by definition is a
global company,” Usas said. When hacks occur, “there’s forensic work
that needs to be done,” he added, but often legal and policy issues come
into play, as well as human behavior analysis.

“There are a number of straight deep tech jobs, but there are also a
number of hybrid jobs,” Foote said, noting that computer hacks can
affect accounting and finance divisions, as well as logistics, marketing
and legal affairs.

Those who are already established in cybersecurity and leading teams at
companies are well-compensated.

“There is some talk out there, I’ve heard it, that lead software
security engineers are making $230,000 and $240,000 a year. It’s crazy,”
said Foote.

Foote’s consulting firm receives compensation data from 2,914 employers
who report on what they pay 255,650 full-time technology professionals.

In the most recent quarter, Foote said, the firm found an average salary
of