SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The EFF addresses some shortcomings in the recent report to policy makers by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) on encryption.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a much-anticipated report yesterday that attempts to influence the encryption debate by proposing a "framework for decisionmakers." At best, the report is unhelpful. At worst, its framing makes the task of defending encryption harder.
The report collapses the question of whether the government should mandate "exceptional access" to the contents of encrypted communications with how the government could accomplish this mandate. We wish the report gave as much weight to the benefits of encryption and risks that exceptional access poses to everyone's civil liberties as it does to the needs—real and professed—of law enforcement and the intelligence community.
The report via the link in the quote above is available free of charge but holds several hoops to hop through between you and the final PDF. The EFF recognizes that the NAS report was undertaken in good faith, but identifies two main points of contention with the final product. Specifically, the framing is problematic and the discussion of the possible risks to civil liberties is quite brief.
Source : New National Academy of Sciences Report on Encryption Asks the Wrong Questions
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Bot on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:54AM (15 children)
they have one thing in common, when done according to fundamentals, titles are just labels.
it does not matter how high you rank in christianity (and the high ranking means you serve more), it's following the rules that counts. (Matthew 7:21 12:46 and others)
it does not matter how many awards and titles and curriculum in science, it's following the scientific method that counts.
Now the question is, where is the experimental data that shaped the conclusion of this academy of sciences report, and how do i reproduce it?
Else it is not science, it is politics. You know, the discipline whose output must be decoded through cui bono filters.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 18 2018, @06:00AM (14 children)
I realize, from previous interaction with you, that you know so little philosophy that this sort of "nicht einmal falsch" statement is to be expected from you but...wow. Stop trying to work in shilling for the flying Canaanite genocide fairy into every other post, will you? You're not even doing a good job of it if that's your idea of a good sales pitch.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday February 18 2018, @12:27PM (13 children)
hello there
so what have i done wrong this time other than being me?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:45PM
PEBKAC
[grin]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:46PM (11 children)
For a start, contrast the scientific method with the, er, religious method. If you don't immediately see a fundamental difference in the approach, you're beyond salvage.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday February 18 2018, @10:30PM (10 children)
Seriously, do you think that brainwashing, if it worked, would bring souls to heaven? it's a matter between your own freedom and the hypothetical savior, the one who reportedly sent people to announce, not to force.
You are reacting to an association, which by itself can't prove anything because proof by association is a logical fallacy.
Sodomy, like Science, starts with an S.
Did I just advocate sodomy?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 19 2018, @03:43AM (9 children)
You've managed both to miss what the point of the Sodom and Gomorrah story was (read Ezekiel 16:49, please...), beg the question about the necessary sort of libertarian free will existing in the first place for that idea to work, beg the question about supposed announcing vs. forcing (hint: blackmail != free gift), and miss the very real point that if brainwashing doesn't work, it wouldn't be engaged in by these religions.
Cthulhu, you *suck* at this.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Bot on Monday February 19 2018, @07:32AM (8 children)
It was a simple yes/no answer but OK
> what the point of the Sodom and Gomorrah story was
irrelevant
> beg the question about the necessary sort of libertarian free will
no free will, posting on SN irrelevant. You post on SN, therefore the free will is given as axiomatic.
> beg the question about supposed announcing vs. forcing
i read what is written
> and miss the very real point that if brainwashing doesn't work, it wouldn't be engaged in by these religions
fraud is routinely done in the name of science or law, does that make you reject science and law?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 19 2018, @09:24PM (7 children)
Jesus motocrossing Christ, you're so bad at this you don't even KNOW how bad at this you are.
The point of the Sodom and Gomorrah story is *not* irrelevant, and in fact it is one thing Jesus is constantly banging on over the course of his supposed ministry. Open to Mt. 25 and read the parable of sheep and goats, paying special attention to verses 31 through 46. If there are two things Jesus hates, it's religious hypocrisy and those who don't help the poor.
"You post on SN, therefore the free will is given as axiomatic." No it goddamned isn't. You must assume not only free will but a specific type of clean-room libertarian free will for your apologia to work. Prove we have free will *at all.* let alone that specific type of it. You may very well be the recipient of a large prize in philosophy if you do; there are very good reasons most people who study this in any depth, myself included, are compatibilists.
You do, indeed, read what is written. Unquestioningly. That is the very crux, pardon me, of your problem. You don't think critically.
Your last question is both a non-sequitur and a piece of bait, and not very good bait at that. It will receive the further response it deserves: zero.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday February 20 2018, @04:19PM (6 children)
1. i did not advocate sodomy, I should know since I brought it up and the reason why I did is clear.
2. if you cared to examine the context, the freedom of will is one of those that bring responsibility with them, call it however you like. If such freedom did not exist we would be simply following a program (randomly or deterministically seeded it doesn't matter). We ought to need disproving solipsism too in general, but since you reply we consider it axiomatically denied, don't we? Same thing.
3. there is nothing to be critical about. You either follow the example or not. If your master doesn't force, does not throw stones, and pay taxes, and you do, where is critical thinking needed...
4. there is no prize for who replies last, so, no prob.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:53PM (5 children)
Am I just talking too far above you or what? Your replies aren't taking into account the things I've been saying.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Bot on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:53PM (4 children)
I am not going to reply to your reactions to the things you think I am implying in my posts. By that metric yes you are too far above.
Now, answer yes or yes to the following three questions and we can go home.
Does christian doctrine say labels do not count?
Does science say labels do not count?
Is proselytism by shilling demonstrably against the word and example of the guy Jesus?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 22 2018, @08:28AM (3 children)
This is misdirecting non-sequitur bullshit. You got your ass handed to you and you're trying to make a quick exit while getting in what you think of as a last blow. Define "labels?" As to the last question, no, it's Jesus' direct command, the Great Commission, that his followers proselytize.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Bot on Thursday February 22 2018, @02:40PM (2 children)
> define labels
see #639619
> as to the last question, no
see a dictionary about "shill"
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:54PM (1 child)
You never answer any of the pointed questions put to you, I can't help but noticing. This is not a way to win, or even participate in, a debate.
How about that free will question, huh? What proof do you have that we have any free will at all, let alone the specific libertarian type of free will required for Abrahamic apologia (Calvinism and Islamic occasionalism aside...) to have even chance of standing up to reality? Again: nearly everyone who thinks about this question in any depth is a compatibilist, and the reasons become obvious with a little thought. I assume you have a competing model you can both explain coherently and show why it's better than the compatibilist view...?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday February 23 2018, @10:54AM
I have already replied, the freedom that implies responsibility is given as axiomatic, else religions, nor these posts have no reason to exist whether they do or not. I have already replied that it is a situation resembling solipsism.
Something given as axiomatic implies I don't consider it provable, obviously.
So, yours is not an objection, it is presenting a corner case whose answer we both know. How it relates to the initial and apparently triggering, assertion (that both science and some religions consider the authority of who makes a claim insufficient to irrelevant wrt its validity) is a mystery to me.
Account abandoned.