deadbea7
Joined 15 years ago
Karma
137
Submissions
20
Member since
Nov 4
Recent submissions
Comment · 13 years ago
Comment · 14 years ago
I can think of legitimate reasons for enterprises to MITM traffic. For example, protecting users against malware as a result of drive-by downloads or spear phishing campaigns. Data loss prevention is another good reason -- I would want an enterprise that I'm trusting with my credit card data to alert on payment instruments leaving their network to gmail accounts, for instance.
Comment · 14 years ago
I'm sure the "Help, I have an STD," version of the app is not far behind.
Comment · 14 years ago
Users are only vulnerable if they are using an unsecured or untrusted public wireless network and an older version of the application.
s/an unsecured or untrusted public wireless network/the internet/
Comment · 14 years ago
Monitoring at this scale would require tremendous resources that the Federal government has plenty of but individuals are unable (or unwilling) to invest. The article makes the argument for accumulation of information as a means to obtain power; in the case of individuals collectively accumulating information on the government, who holds the power? If the derived power is fragmented then no one would be motivated to take action.
Comment · 14 years ago
Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous
No, but I reject the categorization of "military-age males in a strike zone" [1] as regular soldiers.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...
Comment · 14 years ago
They don't reduce "enemy collateral damage", though. In fact, the collateral fatalities from drone attacks are one of the highest at 98%, according to some estimates [1]. Compare this to estimated civillian casualty rate of 60% in WWII [2] and around 50% in Vietnam [3] (distorted figures because anyone in a "free-fire" zone is considered the enemy).
The intelligence for drone strikes are based on patterns, such as a party of men carrying guns or a group of unknown people plotting something. And so these strikes routinely -- and sometimes deliberately -- target wedding parties [4], funerals, and rescue workers [5], and children [6].
Add to this the psychological trauma of constantly living under the threat of drones [7], it is no wonder citizens of countries where these programs are carried out hold somewhat of a grudge against the US [8]. You can call it signature strike, or whatever you want, the fact is that bombs do not know the difference between combatants and women/children/civilians. They kill indiscriminately. So forgive me if I don't see the "advantage" of using drones over boots on the ground or see how they are "better".
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/ind...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
[3] http://www.vn-agentorange.org/edmaterials/cost_of_vn_war.htm...
[4] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57448041/afghanistan-off...
[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drone...
[6] http://tribune.com.pk/story/229844/the-day-69-children-died/
[7] http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stan...
[8] http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/27/pakistani-public-opinion...
Comment · 14 years ago
> Even in India, the nature of non violence movement was not completely non violent
It's difficult, if not impossible, for non-violent movements to succeed without the existence of credible threat of violence. Sad, but generally true. This was true of Ghandi and Bhagat Singh's India, as it was for ANC (or MK) and Mandela's South Africa.
The Israelis have little motivation to come to the negotiating table towards a diplomatic solution because the threat of violence against them is not credible enough to act as a deterrent. It is rational for Israel to not show restraint and act in the most aggressive manner possible.
EDIT: site seems to be back again