SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The third largest breach ever just happened in Finland. Passwords were stored in plaintext. At T-Mobile Austria, they explain that of course they store the password in plaintext, but they have so good security so it's nothing to worry about. At what point does this become criminally negligent?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
At What Point Does Storing Passwords in Plaintext Become Criminally Negligent
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 138 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The worst part of valor is indiscretion.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:56PM (28 children)
It's one of the worlds evils, and it *can* be used to reduce many of the other of the worlds evils. Some example uses are standard weights and measures, regulations ensuring purity, etc.
It's got lots of problems, but anarchy doesn't scale because reputation requires personal knowledge. Anarchy quickly evolves into warlordism, which is one of the worse forms of government, but does allow for groups of larger than about 250 to work together. (This is related to Dunbar's number. It's larger because of segmentation.)
If you want a civilization with fast communication and fast transportation (with fast meaning "faster than walking speed") you need to have a government of some sort. Larger civilizations with faster communication and transportation limit the forms of government that will work. But *any* form of government is going to have some regulations. Calling them "evil" sort of misses the point, and reveals a mind set that is theologically focused. They *are* inherently constraining, but some constraints are necessary if people are going to live together in large groups (with large being relative to speed of communication, speed of transport, and Dunbar's number.
All that said, *excessive* regulations, and *unfair* regulations are undesirable, and don't support a just society or liberty. Although, as indicated, liberty must, necessarily, be limited if people are to live in a society, it is still an intrinsic good, and should be *one* of the things that the society is structured to maximize.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 08 2018, @05:13PM (6 children)
You and I are on exactly the same page here. This is a realistic, rational, and experimentally-tested position to hold. Now how do we convince the idiots like Mr. Vim and Uzzard up there?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:07PM (5 children)
It means society without rulers.
You cannot have both rulers and rules; you must choose.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:14PM (4 children)
That is some Deepak-Chopra-level deepity horseshit. Do you even think about the things you say before you post them?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:39PM (3 children)
Try to find a ruler that obeys the rules. Not that we should follow the example, but monkey see, monkey do...
Anyone who complains about the government needs only to look at the voters. Everything else is a waste of time and a distraction, and psychological case of denial.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday April 09 2018, @02:02AM (2 children)
The best form of government would be the benevolent tyrant. A person who is honorable and could be depended on to stand by his or her word. The problem with that is that such a person if not mythical is so rare they might as well be mythical, and that if you even found one, what would the chances of there being 2 in a row ?
Since we have to live in the very imperfect real world all the forms of government generally suck, and your statement about the voters getting what they deserve hits the nail on the head.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress [wikipedia.org]
I've always personally identified with the above but reality keeps intruding...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @07:32AM (1 child)
So, Linus for president?
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday April 09 2018, @07:07PM
I am not so sure. I met him long ago at the 10th annual Linux picnic, and while I respect him for his technical abilities and the work he has done with Linux he is not so benevolent and can be autocratic. I am not sure I can point to anyone I would consider suitable for the job in the recent past. That is part of what makes the system so unreliable. Too bad King Arthur and Superman are fictional. Jesus would probably have been a good candidate.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:17PM
Anarchy quickly evolves into warlordism
You haven't noticed what democracy devolves into? I mean, it's not like we haven't seen it before. And you could just read the book Lord of the Flies. Anarchism simply implies 'rules without rulers', something that might not be possible in the physical universe, but we should work on being nice without being forced. You gotta grant the colonies some autonomy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:52PM
My usual summary of the issue:
1. To say government can do no wrong is stupid, because government can and has done wrong. Furthermore, that belief means the government will have your support regardless of whether it does right or does wrong, giving it no incentive to do right.
2. To say government can do no right is equally stupid, because government can and has done right. Furthermore, that belief means the government will have your opposition regardless of whether it does right or does wrong, giving it no incentive to do right.
The right starting place is "What is the right thing for the government to do in this situation?" Answering "nothing" is sometimes right (the libertarians are absolutely correct to start with this idea), and sometimes wrong (crooks of all kinds would love to avoid government scrutiny).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 08 2018, @08:22PM (18 children)
Didn't say it wasn't a necessary evil. I'm libertarian not stupid.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 08 2018, @09:02PM (6 children)
Holy Moses, that is a nice clean fastball right down the center line over home plate just asking to be hit so far out of the park it'll need peanuts and tiny bottles of liquor on it, LOL.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @09:18PM
What drugs are you on?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 08 2018, @10:57PM (4 children)
Try it. I guarantee you I've put more thought into any political or economic topic than you have.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @02:11AM (3 children)
Are you trying to make me wet myself laughing or what? At least put a warning up top the next time you drop a lulzbomb like that!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @02:20AM (2 children)
No, really. Go for it. You have yet to beat me with a rational argument in any discussion we've ever had. I'm interested, but not hopeful, to see if you can back up your shit for a change.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 09 2018, @02:43AM (1 child)
You don't actually have anything you can argue against, is the problem: you have dogma. There is no more changing your mind than that of a fundamentalist Muslim, and for much the same reason: you, like the Abrahamic partisan, are an idolator and barely even half-understand what it is you say you believe. I've pointed out to you several times that you're making basically the same mistake as the anti-GPL proponents (the idea that the fewest rules up front necessarily and inevitably translates into maximum freedom at all times), and that this leads you into the moral equivalent of priority-inversion bugs, but to no avail.
You seem to think "ha ha, you didn't change my mind" is the same as "i'm right and you're wrong."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @02:53AM
It pretty much is. Argument is how I either strengthen or change my positions. So far you've only helped to strengthen them by providing easily countered mental jetsam.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Monday April 09 2018, @11:29AM (8 children)
Didn't say it [government] wasn't a necessary evil. I'm libertarian not stupid.
Would you care to give a précis of what you believe to be the best system for mitigating the necessary evil of government?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @01:54PM (7 children)
Dictatorship moderated through assassination. It's much more likely that one person can remain above corruption than it is that the majority of any group can. If there's a significant risk of getting your head blown off for showing signs of corruption, it's even easier.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Monday April 09 2018, @08:49PM (6 children)
Given that you you have applied much thought to this, that's an interesting proposition.
At first sight, the number of African corrupt dictators and the state of the countries they left appears to argue against dictatorship being the best form of government for those governed.
Here's a list: Paul Biya, Robert Mugabe, Sani Abacha, Sekou Toure, Siad Barre, Omar Al-Bashir, Hissene Habre, Idi Amin, Hastings Banda, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Mobotu Sese Seku, Gnassingbé Eyadema, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo
Admittedly, two in that list have died under suspicious circumstances, but none of the others were assassinated, however, the parlous state of their countries argues against dictatorship being better than say, the form of liberal democracy practised in many European states and the USA. Brutal dictators appear on the evidence to be pretty good at avoiding assassination.
If you look at countries with the greatest GDP per head on a purchasing power parity basis - the CIA give a convenient list [cia.gov] if anything it looks like that the successful states are lucky enough to be small financial havens or oil- and/or commodity- rich, and of the successful 'larger' countries we have Singapore, Ireland, and Switzerland (which can be argued to have their own special financial reasons for being rated so high on GDP per capita on a PPP basis), leaving the USA as the top dog of genuine mixed-economy countries, with Sweden and Germany following.
I suspect that in practical terms, I would likely prefer a way of life under a chaotic/shambolic liberal multi-party democracy than a dictatorship. In any case, thanks for sharing your views.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @09:01PM (5 children)
Oh, you'd need to put more work into the system than just giving someone complete power. Having only one potentially corrupt individual to remove for change to occur is the quickest way to ensure change but it would by no means be easy to ensure the government was structured in such a way as to make it possible when it necessary. I gave a simple answer not a complete one.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday April 10 2018, @09:07AM (4 children)
I can imagine complications arise in assuring there in only one potentially corrupt individual. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [wikipedia.org] and all that. I live in (by some measures) one of the least corrupt countries in the world, yet I see the corrosive effects of influence/networking in many places. I learned at a young age that however much one might dislike politics, you can't get away from it. Many people considerably more intelligent than me have attempted to construct/describe perfect societies, but none, as far as I know, have had a successful implementation.
While multi-party democracy is not very efficient, it is usually not actively harmful, although it is regrettably easy to find exceptions to this.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 10 2018, @12:07PM (3 children)
Indeed. A bad democracy, well republic, tends to cause less harm than a bad version of anything else. A good dictatorship/monarchy/etc..., however, does more good than anything else.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday April 11 2018, @09:05AM (2 children)
Being of a pessimistic temperament (although I could defend it as being realistic), I tend to look at what could go wrong and try to minimise/mitigate that rather than looking at what could go right. Idealism is for the young.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 11 2018, @10:34AM (1 child)
Same here. Thus the thought I've put into systems of government that could be set up in such a way as to begin and remain less shitty than a republic gone south and my concern with the ease of fatal power transfer when it becomes necessary.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:21AM
OK - thanks for the discussion. It's a pity we don't share a local drinking establishment where I could buy you a few beers (or equivalent if you are alcohol averse).
Thank-you for the work you do in making this place available, and where conversations like this one can take place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @01:51PM (1 child)
Government regulation isn't evil, it is just a tool, like you. It can be used for both good and evil.
Calling it evil is like calling guns evil. They aren't, but use of both should be limited.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 09 2018, @02:01PM
I used to think that too. It doesn't hold water if you understand that any power the government has, it stole from its people though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.