Obama's statement on Cyber Defense; days after Edward Snowden says we should focus on Cyber Defense instead of Offense.
NPR- Obama: If we're going to be connected, then we need to be protected
President Obama said Monday he wants the federal government to do more to prevent cyber attacks. He outlined a series of proposals designed to safeguard personal data — steps he'll talk more about in next week's State of the Union address.
"Dozens of software companies have already signed a voluntary pledge not to misuse students' data. But some in the industry worry that a new federal law would go too far."
Snowden's interview Transcript
Snowden: "DES was actually stronger than we thought it was at the time because the NSA had secretly manipulated the standard to make it stronger back in the day, which was weird, but that shows the difference in thinking between the ’80s and the ’90s."
(Score: 4, Informative) by tibman on Wednesday January 14 2015, @04:51AM
If he agrees then maybe he should check the petition to pardon him? It was completed and has been waiting for a response since June 2013: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD [whitehouse.gov]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by MorbidBBQ on Wednesday January 14 2015, @01:02PM
There's no way Obama will attribute the convenient timing to Snowden's interview. But the chances are high that Obama's advisers were aware of it, and briefed him indirectly.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday January 14 2015, @05:05AM
I suppose there's a fineprint there somewhere - maybe invisible - that states "with the exception of the NSA".
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Wednesday January 14 2015, @05:52AM
Nope, there's no fine print.
It is actually written with fontsize=288pt, you need to get farther away to be able to read it.
(how far? In Snowden's case, seems like it was Hong Kong as the first stop).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday January 14 2015, @07:41AM
No, their current strategy is to build the AI and use it to do whatever they want because laws only apply to humans. They are just buying time now while working frantically on the simulation program. Then they will feed it with the accumulated data and anyone will be easy for manipulation. "Coral, where's the weak spot of Urist McPolitican?" "He's inclined to jump to conclusions for cases with single mothers, he assumes they are always a victim." "Ooh, shiney, it would be shame if some single mother turns out to be abusing her child and he stands on her side..." No person accessed the personal data --> no crime comitted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @08:18AM
Isn't that what XKeyScore does already?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @01:35PM
You're right: It's not sufficient that the AI analyses the situation, it also must autonomously decide on the actions to take. That way, there will no longer be a human anywhere in the loop, and thus no human will break the law.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Thursday January 15 2015, @12:36PM
Also it doesn't actually have to be an AI, they only have to say that it is. It does have to be automated but everything can be automated without adding intelligence.
Of course they could also do “both”, I see no reason why they wouldn't.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday January 14 2015, @06:43AM
Actions speak louder than words.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @06:53AM
"Dozens of software companies have already signed a voluntary pledge not to misuse students' data. But some in the industry worry that a new federal law would go too far."
USA! USA! USA!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 15 2015, @12:42PM
Unlimited Surveillance and Abuse.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @07:58AM
So tomorrow I can expect Fox News to start talking about how our "cyber defenses" are already too strong and need to be weakened, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @08:21AM
I am no expert, but I would expect them to call Obama a coward for emphasizing defense rather than pre-emptively cyber-attacking the
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @01:38PM
Seems you got pre-emptively cyber-attacked before you could finish your
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday January 14 2015, @08:28AM
I'd say "agrees" is pushing it. Coincidentally making a broadly similar statement isn't really "agreement." If Kim Jong Un had made a speech about the importance of cyber security, would we say Obama agreed with him, too?
Besides which, saying "we need to be protected" doesn't necessarily mean a focus on defence over offence, especially where the US government is concerned, based on past behaviour.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday January 14 2015, @08:47AM
We have passed that stage already. There is no trust, you have to prove it not earn it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by MorbidBBQ on Wednesday January 14 2015, @01:06PM
What about misuse of non-students data? Is my privacy any less important because I'm not actively enrolled in an government funded educational program?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday January 15 2015, @03:32AM
Perhaps those companies are in some kind of dependency on students. So if they don't play along they will be cut off from their data source.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @01:42PM
No, you can be sure they won't misuse the data. Because whatever they do with the data, they will declare it appropriate use, not misuse.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday January 14 2015, @08:52AM
Should one assume based on this that the AES algorithm is compromised ?
And what other cryptos can be assumed to be compromised ?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @03:31PM
They are all compromised. Every last one. It is only a matter of computer resources and time. Then on top of that you have a large group of math and CS phds working to crack it. At least that was what I was taught in college (25 years ago). You dont think they have those acres of computers just to hold data and run their email do you? With encryption you want to slow people down long enough for the information to be irrelevant. It will not stop them. Even then you may no longer consider it relevant but they can glean some extra information out of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @08:20PM
They are all compromised. Every last one.
Hand over your evidence. The NSA has some smart and corrupt people, but they aren't magic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @09:58PM
There's no evidence to post. This is a fact. What one encrypts, another can decrypt (brute force, not coerced decryption). As was said earlier, it's a matter of making it so hard, cost preventative and time consuming to decrypt that it's simply not worth it to most people to even try, not to make it impossible.
However, criminal organizations looking for something to exploit, governments who seem to think it's their right to snoop on our communications and Universities simply researching if it can be done feasibly without having acres of supercomputers crunching numbers are a few of the organizations that have the potential resources to pull brute force decryption off.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday January 14 2015, @09:49PM
It's defintely better than any roll-your-own primitive for 99.999999% of humans, that is beyond question.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday January 15 2015, @08:09AM
I'm thinking in comparison to other encryption standards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 15 2015, @01:56PM
Clean algorithms do not do anyone any good if the software and hardware has backdoors.
Seed numbers are tiny, keys are small. It could be that none of it from any normal computer or phone needs to travel over the Internet or at all. I wonder what the resolution is for quartets of ELINT or MASINT satellites.
If it is feasible then they're dong that in addition to everything else. Considering the amount of data they collect it is a safe bet that everything is compromised.